A Comprehensive Guide to Debate Adjudication

Muhammad Abdul Latif Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Department Student Development and Co-curricular Activity Division International Islamic University Malaysia

Introduction to Ad udicatin! Competitive Debates"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""# $he $eam %oles in &ritish 'arliamentary and the Asian(Australasian Debates""""""""""""""""""# Closin! $eams in &ritish 'arliamentary Debate) E*tension vs" Dumpin!(&ac+stabbin!""", %ole of Ad udicators- the Chair and the 'anel in Asian(Australasian Debate""""""""""""""""""""", %ole of Ad udicators- the Chair and the 'anel in &ritish 'arliamentary Debate """""""""""""""". $here is no ri!ht or /ron!- is there0"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". $a+in! 1otes) %e/indin! the $ape """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". Ad udicatin! Debates as the Avera!e %easonable 'erson"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""2 Assessin! the Stren!th of an Ar!ument vs" Enterin! into the Debate"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""2 &asics of Ad udication) Matter- Manner & Method"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""3 Assessin! Matter""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""3 4irst- Definition""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""3 Second- Ar!uments """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""5 $hird- %ebuttals""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""5 Assessin! Manner""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""5 Assessin! Method""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""6 4irst- 7r!anisation of the $eam8s Case""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""6 Second- 7r!anisation of the Individual Speeches""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""6 $hird- %esponses to the Dynamics"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9: ;ud!in! a Definition Debate) It is Merely a $echnical Comple*ity""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9: Mar+in! 'oints of Information""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9: Asian(Australasian Style %eply Speeches) the &iased Ad udication and the <alf $ruth" "99 Mar+in! Scheme in the Conte*t of Asian(Australasian Debate""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""99 $he Mar!in in the Conte*t of Asian(Australasian Debate """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9# Ad udication Scheme at =orlds >&' style?)""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9# Ad udication of &' Debate in the Malaysian Conte*t"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9. Mar+in! Scheme) =here do I start0""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9. =hen Does the 7pposition <ave to 'rovide an Alternative0""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""9. 7ral Ad udication and =hy the Debaters Complain """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""92 $he End 'rocess and Double Chec+s""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""93 $he %ole of the Chief Ad udicator of a $ournament"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""93

(Note for the Participants of the Adjudicators Workshop at U.P.S.I: The Royal Malaysian Intervarsity Debating Championship (known as Royals for short) uses the same format as that of the All Asian Intervarsity Debating Championship. Thus in this gui e everything that is appli!able for the Asian ebating format is e"ually appli!able to Royals. The is!ussion about the #ritish $arliamentary Debating %ormat is not relevant for Royals. &owever' it is goo to know about this format as it is the format for the (orl )niversities Debating Championship an a number of *nglish ebating !ompetitions in the !ountry an the region use this format.) Ad udicatin! debates is a sub ective e*ercise" Unli+e many sports- in debates there is no clear method of provin! a team8s score" Ad udicators- @uite often- are e@ually divided as to the /inner of a debate- particularly in very close ones" $his !uide intends to minimiAe sub ectivity in debate ad udication- clarify the defined rules of debate and brin! consistency in the ad udication of En!lish debates in the country and in the re!ion" $his !uide does not e*plain in detail /hat a debate is and the differences amon! various formats of debates- althou!h it provides a basic introduction" As this focuses on ad udication of competitive debates- it is advisable that the reader has actually seen a competitive debate before readin! this !uide" Introduction to Adjudicating Competitive Debates $here are many competitive debatin! championships follo/in! different formats(style of debatin! around the /orld and in the re!ion" Amon! these formats- the Australasian- the Asian 'arliamentary and the &ritish 'arliamentary formats are the most /ell +no/n in the re!ion" Althou!h these formats differ in some areas- the s+ills to ad udicate these debates are very similar" Assessments of teams8 stren!ths and /ea+nesses- ar!uments- manner etc" follo/s more or less the same rules" =hen ad udicatin! competitions in different formats- the ad udicators need a !ood understandin! of the rules of the different formats in addition to the !eneral rules of assessment of a debate" The Team Roles in British Parliamentary and the Asian/Australasian Debates In the Australasian(Asian format of debates- there are t/o teams in the debate) the !overnment and the opposition" $he role of the Bovernment team is to support the motion" $his involves definin! the motion- constructin! a positive case in favour of the motion- providin! substantive materials and ar!uments in support of the case and respondin! to any challen!es made to that case by the 7pposition" $he role of the 7pposition team is to ne!ate the motion" $his involves respondin! to the BovernmentCs definition- constructin! a case in opposition to the motionprovidin! substantive materials and ar!uments in support of the case and respondin! to the ar!uments delivered by the Bovernment" In &ritish parliamentary debates- there are four teams) t/o on each sides i"e" !overnment and opposition" $he teams are +no/n as 7penin! Bovernment- Closin! Bovernment- 7penin! 7pposition and Closin! 7pposition" $he !eneral roles of the !overnment and opposition teams

are the same as those in Asian(Australasian format" $he t/o teams on the same side- althou!h are different teams- must /or+ as one bench supportin! the same !eneral idea" Since only one team out of the four /ill eventually /in the debate- the closin! teams may and should distin!uished themselves from their openin! teams- in terms of focus and ar!uments" Closing Teams in British Parliamentary Debate !"tension vs# Dumping/Bac$stabbing $he closin! teams8 tas+ is challen!in! in the sense that they have to support the openin! teams but at the same time have to distin!uish themselves from the openin! teams and ma+e their o/n impact in the debate" $he closin! teams should distin!uish themselves by providin! an e*tension and by brinin! ori!inal contributions in the debate /hile defendin! the openin! team of the side" An e*tension is ne/ ar!uments- analysis- and applications that support and further stren!then the openin! team8s case" A Dmechanism8 or a Dmodel8 can also be a le!itimate e*tension provided a mechanism is important in the debate and the openin! team did not provide one" It is also possible that a closin! team comprehensively develops an ar!ument or issue that /as only mentioned in passin! by the openin! team" In this situation such a development can be treated as an ori!inal contribution and thus a le!itimate e*tension" A closin! team should not contradict or be inconsistent /ith the openin! team" If an openin! team has presented a plainly /ea+ case- it is the responsibility of the closin! team to patch the holes and re-interpret the issues to ma+e the case sound" A closin! team cannot stab in the bac+ or dump the openin! team even thou!h the case of the openin! team has been very /ea+ and torn apart by the opposin! team" Defendin! a /ea+ case of the openin! team throu!h refinin!- finetunin!- re-interpretin! and brin!in! additional analysis /hile rou!hly follo/in! the !eneral line of ar!umentations of the openin! team presents the best chance at /inin! for a closin! team" Ad udicators should not e*pect a closin! team to defend /hat is indefensible" 4or e*amplecontradictions /ithin the case- factual errors- very illo!ical ar!uments etc" of the openin! team need not be defended by the closin! team" &ut in the process of choosin! /hat to defend of the openin! team and tryin! to- perhaps- shift the focus of the debate- the closin! team should try notto sound li+e they are abandonin! the approach of the openin! team" If there is a feelin! amon! the ad udicators that the closin! team has dumped or bac+stabbed the openin! team- the ad udicators should consider D/hy the closin! team dumped the openin! team8- D/as dumpin! absolutely necessary to ensure survival of the closin! team8- Ddid dumpin! lead to a better debate8" A closin! team may depart from the openin! team /hen there is a dispute of definitions bet/een the openin! teams and the openin! opposition provides a valid redefinition" <o/ever- if the definition !iven by the openin! !overnment is a valid one- it is e*pected that the closin! !overnment defend that definition" Role o% Adjudicators& the Chair and the Panel in Asian/Australasian Debate $he three main roles of an ad udicator is to decide the /inner- reason out the decision and provide constructive criticism for the teams" A sin!le ad udicator or a panel ad udicates debates" In the case of a panel at the Asian(Australasian debates- the ad udicators decide the /inner individually and fill up the score sheets and pass them to the chair" $he chair opens all the score sheets only after he has filled up his" $he /inner is decided based on ma ority" After the /inner has been decided- the chair !enerally conducts a discussion amon! the ad udicators re!ardin! the stren!ths and /ea+nesses of the teams" 1o chan!e of decision is allo/ed upon the discussion"

$he chair delivers the verdict- and in case the chair is in the minority- it is advisable that a member of the ma ority does so" Role o% Adjudicators& the Chair and the Panel in British Parliamentary Debate As there are four teams in a &ritish 'arliamentary debate- ad udicators /ill ran+ the teams as 9 st#nd- ,rd and .th" $he ran+in! of the teams must be reflected in the teams8 total mar+s" $hus the team that ran+s first must have more points in total than the team that ran+s second" $he total mar+s of t/o teams in the same debate cannot be the same- as the ad udicators have to put one of them at a hi!her ran+ than the other" $he ran+in! of teams is achieved throu!h the discussion amon! the ad udicators in the panel" In this re!ard it differs from ad udicatin! an Australasian(Asian format of debate /here ad udicators reach their verdict individually and the team that !ets ma ority votes of the ad udicators in its favour is declared as the /inner" In &ritish 'arliamentary debates- I have observed t/o /ays of conductin! discussions amon! !ood ad udicators" 4irst- /here the ad udicators !ive a tentative ran+in! that they have individually reached and then they discuss to reach an a!reement" $he advanta!e of this method is that it ensures that ad udicators freely e*press their ran+in! /ithout bein! influenced by other ad udicators8 opinions" <o/ever- this method may present some difficulty in terms of reachin! an a!reement as ad udicators /hose initial ran+in! /ere different may not be very +een to chan!e their ran+in! after discussion" Second- /here the ad udicators discuss the !eneral features of the debate and stren!ths and /ea+nesses of each team" It is al/ays easier to a!ree on stren!ths and /ea+ness of the teams- and the important aspects of the debate- rather than the ran+in! of teams" 7nce a!reement has been reached on these areas- it is then easier to reach an a!reeable ran+in!" =hen a unanimous a!reement as to the ran+in! cannot be reached- the ad udicators may try to reach a ma ority decision" If a ma ority decision cannot be reached- the chair of the panel /ill have the final say in decidin! the ran+in!" In this process of discussion and comin! up /ith a ran+in! the chair of the panel acts as the moderator" There is no right or 'rong& is there( Many of us /ill say- in debate ad udication there is no ri!ht or /ron! decision" $his is only partially ri!ht" Ees- there is no ri!ht or /ron! /hen it comes to assessin! the sub ective elements of a close debate" &ut there are clear-cut ri!hts and /ron!s /hen it comes to the process of ad udication" It is obviously /ron! if an ad udicator fails to listen to an idea of a team no matter ho/ ill developed it may be" 1othin! is ri!ht about not notin! that a team has developed most of its substance in the last fe/ minutes of the debate" $he most important aspect of bein! ri!ht is to consider every sin!le issue and remain methodolo!ically correct in comparin! the faults and stren!ths of the teams" Ta$ing )otes Re'inding the Tape

Ad udicators should maintain detailed notes durin! the debate" 1otes should be ta+en in such a /ay that a !lance over the notes reminds the ad udicators as ho/ every speech and the /hole debate pro!ressed" &y loo+in! at the notes- one should be able to rerun the debate in his(her mind" I call it visualiAin! the debate once a!ain after it is over" $his is not to say that the ad udicators should ta+e tens of pa!es of notes only to find that they never have the time to loo+ at them before they have to decide- or never have the time to appreciate the beauty of the speech by loo+in! at the debater and en oy his(her presentation" &ut as I said- it should be enou!h to rerun the debate in your mind" I found one practice very helpful and that is to ma+e my o/n remar+s at the end of every speech re!ardin! the debater8s performance" %emar+s li+e Dreads too much from notes8- Ddid an e*cellent ob in dealin! /ith a particular issue e"!" fairness8- or Dfails to address a particular issue e"!" fairness /hich is the main ar!ument of the other team8 Dthe @uestions he (she raised that I e*pect the ne*t debater to ans/er8- Dthe @uestions he(she failed to ans/er that /ere raised by the previous debater8" &efore a speech- one may note do/n the issues or @uestions that one e*pects the debater to address" $hese are not issues that I thin+ are important- rather these are issues that the previous debater has raised" $hese methods are every person8s o/n" I have seen lot of ad udicators usin! pens of different colours to ta+e a special note of thin!s they /ant to remember" $hese remar+s- colourin! etc provide an e*planation behind the interim mar+s and help ad udicators rerun the debate /hen needed" Adjudicating Debates as the Average Reasonable Person $he ad udicator enters the debate chamber as an D average reasonable person+" An avera!e reasonable person is a fairly /ell-informed citiAen of the !lobe /ith an avera!e understandin! of !lobal and re!ional issues- and a basic understandin! of popular disciplines and lo!ic" $he ad udicator must set aside his(her e*ceptional personal preferences- e*periences- opinions or e*pert +no/led!e- /hich /ill not be shared by an avera!e reasonable person" An ad udicator is supposed to be a ac+-of-all-trades and master of none" <o/ever the ad udicator is an e*pert in terms of the rules of debate" Ad udicators >often bein! e* debaters? tend to analyse the ar!ument by pin pointin! the possible /ea+nesses of it- as the opposin! team /ould do it" $his sometimes /ill be seen as Denterin! into the debate8 >discussed after/ards?" Ad udicators must strictly avoid this" $he ad udicators should merely determine /hether the ar!uments are convincin! in the eyes of an avera!e reasonable person" An interestin! observation in this respect is that an avera!e reasonable person is more easily convinced than a debater- because he is open to be convinced" Benerally an avera!e reasonable person is e@ually easily convinced other/ise /hen the merits of the opposin! side are pointed out" Ad udicators should avoid comin! in bet/een this process of the teams tryin! to convince the avera!e reasonable person by brin!in! their o/n vie/s of /hat is /ea+ or /hat is stron! unless it is obviously so" Assessing the *trength o% an Argument vs# !ntering into the Debate $he most obvious instance of ad udicators enterin! into the debates is /hen ad udicators brin! in their e*pert +no/led!e or preferences into the debate" $hey also enter into the debate if they build the ar!uments for the teams" Ad udicators should not supplement an unclear or ill developed ar!ument /ith their additional e*planation" <o/ever- the ad udicators8 tas+ is to assess the ar!ument8s stren!th" <e should point out the /ea+nesses that an avera!e reasonable person /ill

observe" <e should not !o beyond that and assume the duty of findin! faults on behalf of the opposin! teams" In this case he can be seen as enterin! into the debate" $a+e a very tric+y e*ample >real?" $he debate is about !enetic en!ineerin! of crops" $he !overnment team ar!ued that the third /orld does not have proper bodies that can re!ulate the !ro/th of !enetically en!ineered crops" $he opposition team i!nored the ar!ument" $he ad udicator in the verdict stated that he finds the ar!ument not convincin! because as an avera!e reasonable person he /ould +no/ that in third /orld countries there is the ministry of a!riculture that can re!ulate" If this /as to be raised by the opposin! team- then the !overnment team could have responded /ith the issue of ineffectiveness of and corruption in third /orld ministries" I also ponder /hether the avera!e reasonable person +no/s ho/ efficient( corrupt the third /orld ministries are" At the end- I concluded that in this debate the ad udicator has either entered the debate or has only considered half of the avera!e reasonable person8s +no/led!e >that there is the ministry of a!riculture- since the ad udicator i!nored the fact of ineffectiveness of the third /orld ministries?" In any case the ad udicator /as methodolo!ically /ron!" $he best practice in these cases /ill be to let the teams fi!ht out /hat is ri!ht or more convincin! and for the ad udicators not to brin! issues unless the teams themselves pic+ it up" As I said the avera!e reasonable person /ill not loo+ for faults- but /ill mar+ one /hen it is made obvious" Basics o% Adjudication +atter& +anner , +ethod Debates are !enerally ud!ed on the basis of matter >.:?- manner >.:? and method >#:?" In =orlds the cate!ories are matter and manner /hile method is included /ithin the t/o" Assessing +atter Matter includes) i? Definition - set up of the case- burden of proof etc" ii? Ar!uments - Fey statement- e*planation- analo!y- e*amples- evidences etc" iii? %ebuttals - Fey statement- e*planation- analo!y- e*amples- evidences etc" $he ad udicators should loo+ at all these aspects of matter and !ive the appropriate score to the debater" -irst& De%inition A summary of the rules of definition for is as follo/s) a. The de%inition should be reasonable $he definition should be reasonable and should state the issue or issues arisin! out of the motion to be debated- meanin! of any terms in the motion re@uirin! clarification and display clear and lo!ical lin+s to the /ordin! and spirit of the motion" $hus a definition is unreasonable /hen it displays no clear lin+ /ith the topic or it involves a misinterpretation of the /ords or the spirit of the motion" A definition is also unreasonable if it employs overly specific +no/led!e or runs counter to the resolution"

$here must be a clear and lo!ical lin+ bet/een the motion and the definition" 4or e*ample- consider the motion G$his house supports affirmative actionH" $he Bovernment defines affirmative action to mean supportin! a Idisadvanta!edI !roup" $his !roupaccordin! to the Bovernment- should not be limited to ust humans" $he Bovernment then ar!ues that in the animal /orld- some species are endan!ered and therefore can be considered Idisadvanta!edI because of their lo/ numbers" A prime e*ample of this are the /hales /hich are hunted and +illed by ;apanese /halers" $hen the conte*t in /hich the Bovernment set the debate is Gthat the U1 should impose economic sanctions on ;apan for its /halin! activityI" $o propose a definition that is only remotely lin+ed to the motion such as this is called /s0uirelling/" $his is strictly prohibited- and such definitions can be challen!ed by the 7pposition" $he definition should not incorporate overly specific +no/led!e" It is unreasonable if the Bovernment proposes a definition that includes topics /hich are outside that of the ran!e of a typical /ell-read university student" In other /ords- the definition must be limited to topics /hich the 7pposition can be reasonably e*pected to debate and must not depend on a detailed understandin! of specific facts /hich may not be available to the !eneral public" $he definition should not run counter to resolution" At times- due to lac+ of understandin! of the topic or even intentionally- Bovernment teams end up ta+in! the 7pposition8s case" An e*ample of such a definition is the motion that G<uman ri!hts is but a son! and danceH /here the Bovernment defined the /ord GbutH to mean GnotH and started ar!uin! that human ri!hts is a serious thin! and not a son! and dance" $he 7pposition also ar!ued in the same /ay that human ri!hts are important" $his definition is certainly a!ainst the spirit of the motion" $here could be other instances of unreasonableness of a definition" $hus the Bovernment teams should not stretch the definition to an e*tent that a !ood ma ority of ad udicators find in unreasonable to some de!ree" &y doin! so the Bovernment ta+es the ris+ of bein! challen!ed by the opposition and ad udicators !ivin! lo/ score to them for a bad definition" b. The de%inition must not be truistic or tautological# A truistic definition is one /hich cannot be rationally opposed" If the Bovernment /ere to define the motion I$his <ouse believes that fi!htin! fire /ith fire is ustifiedI to mean that there is ustification in oneCs +illin! of another person in self-defence /hen the latter is threatenin! his(her life- the 7pposition may successfully challen!e the case as truistic" $his is because no reasonable person can or should be e*pected to advocate other/ise" A tautolo!ical definition is one that proves itself by the very meanin! and set up !iven to the topic" c. The de%inition must not employ time/place setting# $he Bovernment may not set the time or place of the debate unfairly" <o/ever the Bovernment can brin! the debate to a /ell +no/n issue /hich- in effect- narro/s the debate do/n to a re!ion or country to be the centre of the debate" In this case it /ill not be seen as an unreasonable place settin!" 4or e*ample if the Bovernment defines the motion I$his <ouse believes that fi!htin! fire /ith fire is ustifiedI as military intervention in the Middle-East Conflict- the definition is fine" $he criterion to ud!e a time(place set definition is that of an Davera!e reasonable person8" $he !overnment can not narro/ do/n the scope of the debate in terms of time and place in such a /ay that an Davera!e reasonable person8 is not e*pected to +no/ or be able to debate the motion as defined"

A !ood definition e*plains the +ey /ords of the topic- irons out the issues(contentions of the debate and identifies the burden of proof follo/in! the rules stated above" *econd& Arguments An ar!ument has a basic statement" $hen it is follo/ed by lo!ical analysis and e*planations as to /hy the basic statement stands" Evidences are adduced to substantiate the analysis" An ar!ument is often concluded by lin+in! bac+ to the burden of proof or the basic contention under the topic" $he ad udicators should assess /hether the ar!uments /ere developed sufficiently to meet the above re@uirements" Kuestions that ad udicators !enerally as+ are) did the debater dischar!e his burden of proof- did the ar!uments lo!ically prove his contention- did he demonstrate !ood understandin! of the ma or issues and relate smaller points to them- etc0 $he ad udicators should assess the stren!th of an ar!ument re!ardless of /hether the opposin! team addresses it or not" A /ea+ ar!ument is a /ea+ ar!ument irrespective of /hether the other team points it out or not" <o/ever- if an important ar!ument of a team is plainly /ea+- an opposin! team is e@ually !uilty- if not more- if they do not address it" $o me the opposin! team is even more to be blamed for lettin! the team !et a/ay /ith a /ea+ ar!ument" If the opposin! team points out that an ar!ument is /ea+- the team has an opportunity to defend- but if the ad udicator says so- they have no chance to defend" $herefore- the ad udicators should treat an ar!ument as /ea+ only /hen it is plainly /ea+ to an avera!e reasonable person" $he ad udicators- at the same time- should e@ually fault the opposin! team on at least method >may include matter as /ell? for not addressin! it" Third& Rebuttals $he rebuttals are similar to ar!uments" Ar!uments are to prove a claim /hereas rebuttals are to disprove the validity of that ar!ument or claim" $hus !ood rebuttals /ill also- !enerally- have a basic statement- e*planation- analysis and supportin! evidences" A team does not have to rebut each and every e*ample introduced by the other team" Instead they should rebut the fundamental lo!ic of the ar!ument or the case and raise possible ob ections to the proposal >if any?" Assessing +anner 4ollo/in! are elements of manner) respectable attitude to/ards the ud!es and the other teamvocal style) volume- clarity- pace- intonation etc- appropriate use of notes- eye contact- body lan!ua!e- hand !estures- impression of sincerity- humour- /it- appropriate sarcasm" Assessin! manner is very sub ective" Some ad udicators li+e a!!ressive debaters- /hile many others li+e the calm ones" 7ne important thin! that ad udicators should remember is that there is no one best /ay to debateL there is no difference bet/een an a!!ressive and forceful debater and one /ho is calm and understated if both are able to demonstrate the ability to persuade and hold the attention of the ad udicators" 1ot/ithstandin! this- there is ho/ever a limit to the de!ree of acceptable ImannerI - neither an overly a!!ressive nor a too understated debater /ill score many points" Dress is not part of manner >to the surprise of the many traditional ad udicatorsM?" $he debaters should not be racist- se*ist or plainly offensive to person- or ma+e dero!atory remar+s about other debaters in the debate" $hese are also instances of bad manner"

$he fundamental @uestions that decide the manner score- !enerally- are) Dis the speech persuasive8- Dis he(she able to maintain the audience8s attention8- Dis his(her speech clear8 and perhaps many others" Assessing +ethod Method consists of three elements) a? or!anisation of the team8s case- b? or!anisation of individual speeches- c? responses of the team to the dynamics of the debate" -irst& 1rganisation o% the Team2s Case $o assess team method the ad udicators consider /hether the team8s overall or!aniAation of ar!uments is effective to prove the case in contention" $he ad udicators should also loo+ at the continuity of the team8s theme in all speeches- consistency amon! all debaters >no contradictions?- reinforcement of team membersC ar!uments- clear & lo!ical separation bet/een ar!uments" I have seen many teams- even !ood ones- developin! the substantial materials late in the debate" $hese materials are sometimes introduced only by passin! in earlier speeches and then the third spea+er develops so substantially that it sounds li+e a very stron! ar!ument at the end" Some teams do it as a strate!y >M?" It is a snea+y /ay of tryin! to /in a debate" $he ad udicators must be careful about these instances" It also happens that many of the substantial ar!uments of the !overnment team are only rebutted in the , rd ne!ative speech" It is completely unacceptable" $he team should not only suffer considerably in method mar+s- but earlier speeches of this team should also suffer matter mar+s as they did not address substantial matter introduced in the debate durin! their speeches" $he best team strate!y is to put the best ar!uments on the table at the very be!innin! of the debate and not even leave them to the # nd spea+er" Similarly the opposition team should start addressin! them head on from the very first speech" A debate should have stron! clashes ri!ht from the first speech of the opposition" A !ood e*ample of such a debate is the Brand 4inal of =orlds 6. >$here are many others- but this is perhaps one /hich is easily available on tape?" *econd& 1rganisation o% the Individual *peeches A model individual speech /ill have the follo/in! elements) a? Statements re!ardin! definition( theme( burden of proof ( @uic+ overvie/- b? %ebuttals) rebuttals of the ar!uments as /ell as rebuttals of the rebuttals- c? 'resentation of ar!uments- and c? concludin! summary" $hese elements in !eneral should be present in all the speeches" <o/ever- some specific speeches /ill have some differin! elements" 4or e*ample- the 'rime Minister /ill spend substantial amount of time ># to , minutes? settin! up the definition /hich no other spea+er /ill do unless the definition is challen!ed" Similarly the /hip spea+ers- i"e" third spea+ers in Asians(Australs and fourth spea+er in &ritish 'arliamentary debates- /ill not present any ne/ ar!ument and /ill spend substantial amount of time on rebuttals" %eply spea+ers /ill brin! an overall comparison sho/in! the stren!th of the ar!uments of one team over the other" $here is no reply speech in &ritish 'arliamentary debates- thus the reply spea+ers8 role is !enerally accommodated /ithin the /hip speeches"

Individual structure should be assessed in terms of /hether the spea+er performs the role e*pected of him(her effectively" Ad udicators /ill also loo+ at time mana!ement in the speech" Third& Responses to the Dynamics Debates do not al/ays pro!ress the /ay teams thou!ht it /ould before they entered the debate" At every point in the debate- some issues become of prime focus and the core of the debate and some other issues initially thou!ht of bein! contentious become irrelevant or out of contention" Some times teams concede to some of the issues and thus it does not ma+e sense for the other team to spend time developin! them" Debaters should understand these pro!resses and dynamics and respond accordin!ly and not ust !o ahead and spea+ as they planned durin! their preparation time" If a debater i!nores the most important ar!uments of the earlier spea+er and does not rebut them he lac+s dynamics and should thus score lo/ in method- even thou!h he rebuts the minor ar!uments of the other side" It is possible that the debater understands the issues /ell and addresses them but his(her responses are /ea+" In this case he !ets !ood score for method for understandin! the dynamics of the debate but scores lo/ in matter for unconvincin! responses or ar!uments" 3udging a De%inition Debate It is +erely a Technical Comple"ity A definition debate is not necessarily difficult to decide- if you are a/are of the definitional rules" In a definition debate the ad udicators should first consider /hether the definition provided by the !overnment passes the rules" If it does- the conclusion is that the challen!e made by the opposition is un ustified" If the opposition leader cannot ustify the challen!e he has already lost the debate on one count" &ut this alone /ill not settle the /hole debateL the ad udicators still have to loo+ at the developments that ta+e place after that" Ad udicators have to consider ho/ both teams ar!ue out the case under each definition- or ar!ue out the validity or other/ise of the definitions" Ad udicators /ill also consider the Deven ifs8 introduced by both teams /hen re@uired and matter- manner method of teams as a /hole" $hus it is not merely /ho /ins the issue of definitional challen!e that automatically decides the debate" Ad udicatin! a definition debate re@uires a careful analysis of the definitional rule and the technical roles performed by all debaters of both the teams" +ar$ing Points o% In%ormation $he debaters are advised to ta+e at least t/o '7Is durin! their speeches" All debaters are advised to attempt to !ive '7Is but they should not do so in a manner disruptive to the debater holdin! the floor" =hat amounts to be disruptive is sub ective" <o/ever t/o clear e*amples are /hen a debater uses lon! and loud sentences ust to !et the attention to/ards his(her attempt to !ive '7Is >I have seen it happen? or say if a debater stands up on a '7I /ithin fe/ seconds after he has been re ected" A #: seconds /aitin! period before one stands up a!ain is the rule of the thumb '7Is are assessed on the basis of the threat they pose to the stren!th of the ar!ument of the debater and the value of its /it and humour" &ut the responses to the '7Is are ud!ed on the basis of its lo!ical and intellectual stren!th- promptness and confidence in ans/erin!- and value of its /it and humour"

9:

Mar+s for the '7Is and responses to '7Is should be incorporated /ithin the mar+s of the speech in various cate!ories" 4or e*ample if a debater is inactive in !ivin! '7Is he may score less in method" A!ain if a debater !ives a brilliant '7I that +ills an ar!ument instantly- he could be !iven additional matter mar+s for that" It is relatively easy to mar+ the responses to '7Is as the responses are made /ithin the speech and /hen it is bein! mar+ed- /hereas it is rather difficult to mar+ the '7Is" &ecause '7Is are offered before or after the speech is mar+ed" It is advisable that the ad udicators loo+ at the separate note they +eep re!ardin! '7Is and add into or deduct from their speech score as appropriate to reflect their offerin!s of '7Is" 4or e*ample if a debater offers very !ood '7Is after his(her speech is already mar+ed- his(her mar+ can be increased to reflect his(her activism in '7Is" 7n the other hand if a debater does not offer '7Is or offers bad ones mar+s can be deducted from his(her speech score" At the end- all the debaters8 score /ill not only reflect ho/ they performed in their speeches but also their '7Is throu!hout the debate" Asian/Australasian *tyle Reply *peeches the Biased Adjudication and the 4al% Truth %eply speeches are mar+ed out of 2: >matter #:- manner #:- method 9:?" It is easy to score a reply out of 9:: and then divide by #" A !ood reply speech is often a biased ad udication" A !ood reply speech is the one that summarises the ma or contentions of both the teams and provides a summary of ar!umentation that too+ place durin! the course of the debate provin! that one team has substantial ed!e over the other" It incorporates the ar!uments and rebuttals of both the teams in deducin! a conclusive position" Ad udicators should be careful re!ardin! reply speeches as obviously a team- /hich is losin! the debate in some areas of contention- may and /ill choose to do/n play or not even mention that those areas of contention e*ist" $his is /hy one reply speech on its o/n is only half the truth" Ad udicators should not be too naNve into believin! that those /ere the only contentions- even thou!h the other team fails to point out areas of contentions /here they have an advanta!e" <o/ever- t/o reply speeches properly done should brin! about the /hole truth to the ad udicators" +ar$ing *cheme in the Conte"t o% Asian/Australasian Debate Each substantive speech is mar+ed out of 9:: accordin! to a detailed division as follo/s and the reply speech is mar+ed proportionately out of 2:" Total .: .: #: 9:: +in5+a" #J-,, #J-,, 9,-9J 3J-5, Av# ,: ,: 92 J2

Matter Manner Method 7ver all

$he score for an avera!e speech is J2" $he minimum for a debater is 3J and the ma*imum is 5," $hese ran!es of avera!e- minimum and ma*imum vary dependin! on the competition in conte*t >7f course- mar+in! scheme for =orlds is entirely different?" =hat is an avera!e speech is very difficult to state" &ut I /ill safely say it is a speech that fulfils the technical role of the debateraddresses the ma or issues at hand to the satisfaction of an avera!e reasonable person and is

99

delivered /ith a clear style of presentation" It may help the ad udicators if I mention here that durin! the last fe/ Asians the score of the $op $en debaters of the tournaments have been around J3"2 to J5" If /e a!ree to ta+e that as a standard to be follo/ed !ivin! a debater JJ inevitably means that that speech is amon! the ten best speeches in that round" 7ther information from the table above are clear" A speech should never !o above 5, or belo/ 3J" I have rarely seen a debater in Asians scorin! 5: or above >1ot that these tournaments do not have !reat debatersrather they have strictly re!ulated ad udication standards?" $hus /hen I !ive a spea+er J5- I e*pect to see him in the Brand 4inal" A score J3 or JJ /ill mean a @uarter or semi finalist8s @uality of speech" The +argin in the Conte"t o% Asian/Australasian Debate Mar!in is the difference of the total score of the t/o teams" All Asians cate!orises the /in(loss of teams into three cate!ories) close- clear and thrashin!" A description of these cate!ories and the ran!e of points /ithin these cate!ories are as follo/s) Category Close( Mar!inal Clear $hrashin! Points :"2-. 2-5 6-9# Description A very close debateL only minor differences separatin! the t/o teams" A relatively clear decision- /ith one team havin! an obvious advanta!e" A very clear /in- /ith the losin! team failin! on one or more fundamental aspects of the debate"

Mar!in reflects a comparison of the t/o teams in the debate" =hereas the spea+ers8 score reflect both a relative comparison of the team8s spea+ers as /ell as an absolute assessment of the spea+ers vis-O-vis e*pected standard in the competition" It is perfectly possible to come up /ith a mar!in of lot more than 9# despite mar+in! the speeches /ithin the ran!e of 3J-5," At the end of the debate the ad udicator should decide ho/ much mar!in is suitable for the debate then ad ust the spea+er8s score accordin!ly" $o ad ust mar!in it is advisable that the ad udicators brin! the lo/ scorin! team up instead of brin!in! the hi!h scorin! team do/n" $his avoids victimisin! the e*cellent debaters meetin! a /ea+ team" &ut of course a compromise can be dra/n /hen appropriate" Adjudication *cheme at 6orlds 7BP style. i? +ethod as a *ubset o% +anner In the /orld debate format each speech is mar+ed out of 9:: of /hich 2: is for matter and 2: for manner" Method is considered /ithin manner" 4or e*ample proper or!anisation of speech can be seen as part of the manner" Method is as important as in any other formats of debates because proper methods ma+e the team(speech hi!hly effective in persuadin!" <o/ever- /hen it comes to mar+in! it is not a separate cate!ory for mar+s li+e that in Asians( Austals" Team Grades and +ar$s Each team in the debate is to be !iven a letter !rade bet/een A-E" $his !rade /ill be based on the performance of the team as a /hole" A team may be !raded DA8 althou!h one of the debaters individually is !raded D&8"

ii?

9#

4ollo/in! are the !rades- mar+in! ran!e for the !rades and their meanin! >source) =orld 'arliamentary Debatin! %ules by %ay D8CruA?)

Grade A

+ar$s 95:-#::

+eaning E*cellent to fla/less" $he standard you /ould e*pect to see from a team at the Semi 4inal ( Brand 4inal level of the tournament" $he team has many stren!ths and fe/- if any- /ea+nesses" Above avera!e to very !ood" $he standard you /ould e*pect to see from a team at the finals level or in contention to ma+e to the finals" $he team has clear stren!ths and some minor /ea+nesses" Avera!e" $he team has stren!ths and /ea+nesses in rou!hly e@ual proportions" 'oor to belo/ avera!e" $he team has clear problems and some minor stren!ths" Pery poor" $he team has fundamental /ea+nesses and fe/- if anystren!ths"

&

93:-9J6

9.:-926

9#:-9,6

9::-996

iii?

Individual Debater Grades and +ar$s Each individual debater is also !raded and mar+ed usin! a similar scheme" As mentioned earlier even thou!h a team may be !raded DA8- an individual member of the team may be !iven D&8 !rade" <o/ever the total of the t/o members must reflect the correct !rade and mar+s of the team as a /hole" 4ollo/in! are the !rades- ran!e of mar+s for the !rades and their meanin!)

Grade A

+ar$s 6:-9::

+eaning E*cellent to fla/less" $he standard of speech you /ould e*pect to see from a spea+er at the Semi 4inal ( Brand 4inal level of the tournament" $his spea+er has many stren!ths and fe/- if any/ea+nesses" Above avera!e to very !ood" $he standard you /ould e*pect to see from a spea+er at the finals level or in contention to ma+e to the finals" $his spea+er has clear stren!ths and some minor /ea+nesses"

&

5:-56

9,

J:-J6

Avera!e" $he spea+er has stren!ths and /ea+nesses and rou!hly e@ual proportions" 'oor to belo/ avera!e" $he spea+er has clear problems and some minor stren!ths" Pery poor" $his spea+er has fundamental /ea+nesses and fe/- if any- stren!ths"

3:-36

2:-26

Adjudication o% BP Debate in the +alaysian Conte"t 7ne interestin! point to note is that the mar+in! ran!e for individual speeches at =orlds is 2:9:: /hereas at Asians(Australs is 3J-5," At =orlds a /ide ran!e is needed considerin! the number of teams and disparity in their performances" Do /e need such a /ide ran!e at &' debate tournaments in Malaysia0 I believe not" 4irstly- at the Malaysian tournaments the disparity of performance of the debaters is no/here as bi! as that at the /orlds" Secondly- havin! such a /ide ran!e /ill unnecessarily increase the elements of sub ectivity" $he Malaysian &' debate tournaments li+e the 1PD and others have !enerally adopted the mar+in! scheme of the Asians( Australs that is each individual speech is to be mar+ed /ithin 3J-5, follo/in! the criteria of three M8s" &y adoptin! this mar+in! ran!e- re@uirement of letter !rades >A-E?- perhaps prudently- has been omitted from most of these tournaments" $hus the ad udicators in these tournaments are supposed to ran+ the teams and provide the mar+s for each debater as per ran!e >3J-5,?" +ar$ing *cheme 6here do I start( I apply a simple method for mar+in! speeches durin! a debate" I am statin! it here for the benefit of those /ho /ould li+e to try it out" 4irst !ive a score the 'rime Minister based on the above e*planation of minimum- ma*imum and avera!e" <is score /ill stron!ly dra/ upon the overall e*pectation from the /hole tournament" $hen compare all other speeches usin! the 'rime Minister8s speech as the benchmar+" A comparison also should be made amon! all the speeches so that all the spea+ers !et a score that they deserve not only in comparison /ith the 'rime Minister but also in comparison /ith each other" In my e*perience /ith lot of ne/ ad udicators- I have found that /hen they assess a spea+er better than another- they immediately !ive the better spea+er a score substantially hi!her >#(, points? than the earlier one" In this situation the difference of score bet/een the t/o teams mi!ht !o beyond the mar!in limit >discussed later?" It is advisable to !ive both the spea+ers the same score if you are not sure /hich one is better" And /hen you are confident that one is better than the other the difference of score amon! them should not be a hu!e one- unless it has to be" 6hen Does the 1pposition 4ave to Provide an Alternative( Many times I have been as+ed this @uestion- Dthe opposition only criticised the !overnment and never provided an alternative- is that enou!h for them to /in the debate08 $he ans/er depends on

9.

the topic and pro!ression of the debate" =hen the debate involves a proposal by the !overnment team to solve certain problem(issues that both teams ac+no/led!e- the opposition has- beside criticisin! the !overnment8s proposal- the option of providin! an alternative" If the opposition chooses to provide alternative- the debate /ill be mostly about the comparison of the t/o proposals" =hereas- if the opposition choose only to criticise the !overnment8s proposal and not !ive an alternative- the follo/in! issues should be considered to determine the responsibilities of both the teams) 9? $he !overnment team8s burden /as to propose a solution to a problem and therefore for them to /in they must prove that their proposal /ill solve the problem or at least improve the situation#? &y not providin! a better alternative- the opposition chooses their burden to be that the !overnment8s proposal /ill not solve the problem or improve the condition or that the !overnment8s proposal has other dan!erous implications and thus should not be accepted" ,? Sometimes the opposition may end up- impliedly- defendin! the status @uo by ar!uin! that by adoptin! the !overnment8s proposal the situation /ill be /orse" $hus it is very much possible that an opposition very ri!htly opposes a model /ithout !ivin! an alternative model of its o/n" At the end the ad udicators should decide based on the burden of proof under the topic and ho/ the teams have dischar!ed that" If the opposition has successfully ne!ated the !overnment8s proposal /ithout providin! an alternative they may still /in the debate" 1ral Adjudication and 6hy the Debaters Complain %eachin! the ri!ht verdict is one thin! and deliverin! the verdict in a convincin! manner is yet another" I have found- particularly in the conte*t of the Asians- many ad udicators reach the ri!ht verdict /ith perfectly ri!ht reasonin!- but not able to e*press their verdict li+e many others due to lan!ua!e difficulty" I /ould many times !et them to ad udicate important rounds but not ma+e them chair or put them in a position /here they have to deliver the ad udication" $his is to maintain the confidence of the debaters in the ad udicators8 pool" In deliverin! the oral ad udication do not replay the /hole debateL teams already +no/ /hat they have said" E*plain the main reason behind the decision" Most of the time the losin! team is more interested to +no/ /hy they lost- than the /innin! team tryin! out find out /hy they /on" I prefer to focus on the losin! team8s /ea+nesses and complement the decision /ith some of the stren!th of the /innin! team" D$o /in this debate- !iven the /ay the debate pro!ressed- the !overnment( opposition needed to do Q <o/ever they failed to Q8 is a phrase that I often use in e*plainin! verdicts" Ad udicators may also hi!hli!ht the differences bet/een the t/o teams in terms of stren!th and /ea+nesses of the cases- technical stren!ths and /ea+nesses or differences in matter- manner and method" Many times teams complain not because they disa!ree /ith the verdict- rather they do not a!ree /ith the reasons" $herefore ad udicators should be very careful in !ivin! their reasons for the decision" 4or e*ample pointin! out more /ea+nesses of the /innin! team than the losin! team /ill !ive a /ron! impression" An ad udicator should never say that team DA8 did not reply to this ar!ument introduced by team D&8- unless he is very sure that they actually did not !ive any reply"

92

It /ill be upsettin! for the team if they actually !ave a reply to that ar!ument even thou!h it could be very short and insufficient" $he teams are !enerally happy if they see that ad udicators actually paid attention to everythin! that they have said but it /as ust not enou!h for them to /in the debate instead of them feelin! that they said many thin!s but the ad udicator did not understand or did not pay attention to it" The !nd Process and Double Chec$s 7ccasionally- ad udicators come up to situation /here they thin+ team DA8 has /on but /hen they calculate all the mar+s it is another team that has hi!her" Eou have to reconcile" 'erhaps the interim mar+s do not reflect upon the /hole debate and it can and should be ad usted if your end impression is different" &ut one must be careful about chan!in! the interims mar+s and ma+e sure that the end impression is not ust the impression from the last one or t/o speeches as they are still fresh in mind" $hus ad udicators need to !o throu!h the notes and ma+e a thorou!h reconsideration in the li!ht of the /hole debate to reassi!n the mar+s" $he bottom line is you should not ust add up the interim score and ma+e the decision" In my ad udication practice- after the end of the debate- I ma+e a summary of contentions- counter contentions- rebuttals- stren!ths and /ea+nesses in manner- method and '7Is for both(all the teams" It allo/s me to have a clear over vie/ all aspects of the team and it ma+es sure that I have not i!nored anythin! that should be noted" $his summary of each team becomes a useful notes for oral ad udication" &efore finaliAin! the decision- ad udicators should al/ays double chec+ the /inner- mar!inindividual scores and total- and more importantly run throu!h the notes to ma+e sure they have no oversi!ht of an issue and that they have considered each and every issue in the debate" The Role o% the Chie% Adjudicator o% a Tournament Every tournament has a Chief Ad udicator >CA? assisted by 9-, Deputy Chief Ad udicators >DCA?" $he CA is responsible to prepare the debate topics- to oversee the dra/ allocation- to allocate ad udicators for debates and entertain any complaints on ad udication" $he CA is in char!e of conductin! the trainin! and test for ad udicators in the tournament leadin! to an ob ective assessment of the ad udicators s+ills and e*perience" $his allo/s the CA to most efficiently allocate the ad udicators durin! the tournament" $he CA should +eep in mind the follo/in! /hen performin! his(her roles) An ad udicator should not ad udicate the same team more than once unless other/ise needed" Ad udicators should define their conflicts durin! re!istration" $/o +inds of conflicts should be ta+en into account) i? 1o ad udicator should be assi!ned to ad udicate teams from his(her o/n university- ii? 1o ad udicator should be assi!ned to ad udicate teams that are /ithin their conflict of interest >e"!" any biolo!ical- emotional relationship /ith a member of the team etc"? 4or the preliminary rounds- sin!le @ualified ad udicators are preferable over a panel of ine*perienced ad udicators" $his should be practiced particularly in the earlier rounds

93

/hen the assessment of ad udicators is not fully clear" As the rounds pro!ress the CA should have more panels and minimiAe sin!le ad udicators" Diversity in the 'anels should be sou!ht /hen possible" 'anels should be fairly diverse in terms of their !ender- nationality etc" $/o ad udicators form the same institution in one panel should also be avoided /here possible" Complaints are not encoura!ed- but if there is any the CA should not allocate the same ad udicator to ud!e the team a!ain irrespective of the validity of the complaint" $his is because the or!aniAer should !ive everybody the best possible professional treatment they can afford"

9J