Volunteer Judge Guide

The BDL and the After-School Debate League

Thank you for volunteering for the Boston Debate League! The BDL is a non-profit organization that manages
and administers the After-School Debate League for Boston Public School students.

During the 2012-2013 Tournament Season, we served more than 600 students and benefited from the
support of more than 400 volunteers. The BDL is one of 19 urban debate leagues nationwide, and we have
the largest debate teams in the nation, averaging 35 students per team. Debate builds confidence, agency,
intellectual curiosity and creativity, and inspires students to engage more deeply in their education. It is our
goal to make debate a signature element of what it means to be a Boston Public School student.

Policy Debate
Policy debate starts with a resolution that calls for policy change by the United States federal government.
There are two teams of two students who argue either the affirmative or the negative of the resolution. On
some occasions (when a debater is absent for example), a team may consist of one debater which is referred
to as going maverick. In policy debate, the quality of the argument is more important than the style or
rhetoric. The better quality arguments will be the most persuasive, which in turn will guide your decision
making.

2013-2014 Resolution
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement
toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela.

1
 Visualizing a Debate:
Please keep in mind that this is a general visual overview. Debate teams may be on opposite sides
or even across a table from each other. The Judge will always be facing both teams of debaters.

Judge

1st Affirmative 2nd Affirmative 1st Negative 2nd Negative

Debater Debater Debater Debater
1A 2A 1N 2N

2
General Logistics

 Before the Debate

o Go to the ballot table and get the ballot with your name on it.
o Get a timer from the ballot table (or you can use the stopwatch function on your phone).
o Go to your assigned debate room – the room is listed on your ballot.

 During the Debate

o Set yourself up at the front of the room with your ballot sheet, timer, and pen.
o The debaters should introduce themselves to you. If they do not, introduce yourself.
o Have the debaters fill out the top portion of the ballot (team and individual names).
o Keep time. Alert debaters to how much time they have left by holding up your fingers (1 finger for
one minute left, for example). Sometimes debaters will keep time for their partners. If they do, you
need not.
o If any debaters (especially those in novice and middle school) are confused, remind them whose
turn it is to speak and what they should be trying to do in their speech.
o Take notes on well-made arguments, good cross-examination, and other comments that will help
you give constructive feedback.

 After the Debate

o Give concise feedback. Take no more than 5 minutes to give feedback as we often need the results
of your decision before pairing the next round.
o Provide specific feedback to the debaters.
 Compliment each debater for 1-2 things they did well.
 Suggest 1-2 areas for improvement.
 Many debaters are English Language Learners whose pronunciation will improve the more
they debate. Judges should give feedback on the content of speeches, not on pronunciation.
o Do not announce the winner, even if debaters ask you to.
o Once the debaters have exited the room, return your completed ballot to the ballot table
immediately after your debate and before you go to your next round.

3
Speech Order, Timing, and Basic Responsibilities

A policy debate round is comprised of an array of different speeches given by each team. What follows is the
order in which those speeches occur, the amount of time allotted for each speech, and the purpose of that
speech. High school students speak for longer than middle school students. Each affirmative (A) and
negative (N) team is comprised of a first (1) and second (2) speaker. As a general rule, the debater who is
not about to give a speech handles the cross-examination (cross-x).

1. First Affirmative Constructive Speech (1AC), 8 minutes for HS, 4 minutes for MS
 The first affirmative debater (1A) will read a pre-written opening speech which introduces the
problem and the affirmative team’s plan for fixing it.

2. Cross-Examination, 3 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS

 The second negative debater (2N) cross-examines the 1A who presented opening arguments.
 The cross-examination may include clarifying questions, will set up the negative team for their case,
and will point out flaws in the affirmative case.
 Cross-examination may either be open, when all four debaters take part, or closed, when only those
stated here take part. If all the debaters agree on open, as judge you may allow this. If they do not
all agree, please keep the cross-examination closed.

3. First Negative Constructive Speech (1NC), 8 minutes for HS, 4 minutes for MS
 The first negative debater (1N) will present arguments that show why the affirmative’s case is a bad
idea.

4. Cross-Examination, 3 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS

 The 1A will cross-examine the 1N.
 The 1A should focus on asking questions that either attack the negative’s position or strengthen the
affirmative’s position.

4
5. Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC), 8 minutes for HS, 4 minutes for MS
 The second affirmative debater (2A) responds to every argument made by the negative team and
reiterates the strong arguments of their case.

6. Cross-Examination, 3 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS

 The 1N crosses the 2A.

7. Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC), 8 minutes for HS, 4 minutes for MS
 The 2N re-presents some of the key arguments from the earlier negative speech, digging deeper
into those arguments, and making sure the judge is reminded of key evidence.
 The negative team will also answer any affirmative responses to arguments.
 This is the last opportunity for the Negative to present new arguments; no new arguments are
allowed in the rebuttals. New evidence that supports previously made arguments is still allowed.

8. Cross-Examination, 3 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS

 The 2A crosses the 2N.

9. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR), 5 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS

 The 1N addresses the arguments from the affirmative speech that his/her partner did not focus on.

10. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR), 5 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS
 The 1A will respond to the arguments made against affirmative case.
 The 1A may make new responses to new arguments presented in the 2NC, but may not otherwise
present new arguments.

11. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR), 5 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS
 The 2N responds to the affirmative arguments with their strongest counter-arguments, emphasizing
the points he/she thinks should convince the judge to vote negative.

12. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR), 5 minutes for HS, 2 minutes for MS
 The 2A summarizes the affirmative attacks on the negative and asserts why the judge should vote
for the affirmative.

13. Prep Time, 8 minutes for HS, 5 minutes for MS

 Each team is allowed additional time to use in between speeches in order to prepare for
their next speech.
 Preparation time is counted per team, not per speaker.

5
Making a Decision

If the affirmative side made the most compelling and well-argued case, vote affirmative. If the negative made
the most compelling and well-argued case, vote negative. But don’t reveal your decision to the debaters.
Try to put aside personal beliefs and base the decision on what you heard during the round. Note: While you
may provide feedback on a cross examination, do not use this to decide a winner unless they reiterate those
points in either a constructive speech or rebuttal.

Filling Out a Ballot:

1. At the start of the round, make sure that each debater has written his/her name in the appropriate
place (1A, 2A, 1N, 2N) and that each team has written their school name at the top of the ballot.

2. For each speech, write down at least one great thing that each speaker did on the back of the ballot.
Please be detailed in your explanation.

3. At the end of the round, decide which team did the better job proving the plan was a good idea or
bad idea.

4. Write the name of the team that won and circle whether they were Affirmative or Negative.

5. Give each student speaker points. Below is the scale for assigning speaker points. Please note: You
can give the same number of speaker points to multiple debaters in the round. Some judges may also
give speaker points in .5 increments (27, 27.5, 28, 28.5, etc.):

 30 Points Absolutely brilliant! An outstanding speaker. A flawless performance.

 29 Points An extremely good speaker. Unusually effective; highly persuasive.
 28 Points A good speaker. Slightly above average. Room for improvement.
 27 Points In the lower-middle of the pack. With strengths, but also with clear flaws
 26 Points An ineffective speaker, overall, though with some glimmers of skill.
 25 Points A significantly flawed speaker.
 Please do not give fewer than 25 points

6. Rank the debaters in the round with 1 being the top debater and 4 being the bottom debater. Please
note: no speaker can receive the same rank as another speaker in the round, even if you have given
them the same number of speaker points.

7. Write the reason you voted the winning team. Remember that you should base your decision on
the debaters’ arguments, not anything else.

8. Sign the ballot and indicate your school, company name, or other affiliation.

9. Bring your completed ballot to the ballot table before going to your next round.

6
 SAMPLE GOOD BALLOT

Division JV Judge Smith, John

Round 1 Room 245

AFF. TEAM Boston Latin Academy D POINTS RANK NEG. TEAM Excel High School C_ POINTS RANK

1A John Sanchez 27.5 3 1N Peter Kim 28.5 1

2A Jane Johnson 28 2 2N Nikquania Jacobs 27 4

Reason for Decision:

The affirmative team proved that the plan was a good idea in the following ways:

 They identified a concrete problem in the status quo

 They explained and extended their arguments about how poverty hurts the economy and causes racism and
discrimination
 They demonstrated that providing block grants would solve this problem through the provision of important
social services that raise individuals out of poverty

The negative team:

 Provided several reasons why the plan would be a bad idea, but did not explain the impacts to those arguments
 Needed to more fully develop why the plan would not be a solution to this problem, and why it might be worse
to attempt to do the plan

THE TEAM WINNING THIS DEBATE WAS Boston Latin Academy D REPRESENTING THE AFF NEG

JUDGE SIGNATURE SCHOOL/AFFILATION ABC Company

7
Individual Feedback
1A John Sanchez
 Very persuasive reading of the 1AC.
 You had great answers in the cross-
examination about your affirmative.
 You did a good job extending and
explaining the 2AC arguments in your
1AR.
 Try to pace yourself in the 1AR because
there will always be a lot to answer in a
short amount of time.
2A Jane Johnson
 Your answers in the 2AC were well-
organized and numbered.
 Your cross-examination of the 1NC did
a great job of clarifying some difficult
points.
 Great explanation of why the plan is a
good idea in the 2AC.
 Try to fully explain the impacts to your
arguments in order to answer the
question “why is the plan a good idea?”
in the 2AR.
1N Peter Kim
 Great analytical arguments in the 1NC.
 You had some really interesting
questions in the cross-examination of
the 2AC.
 Nice explanations of your arguments
and extensions in the 1NR.
 Try to fully explain the impacts to your
arguments in order to answer the
question “why is the plan a bad idea?”
2N Nikquania Jacobs
 Great explanation of the disadvantages
and how the impacts weigh against
doing the plan.
 You had some really interesting
questions in the cross-examination of
the 1AC.
 Good extension of arguments in the
2NR.
 Try to fully explain the impacts to your
arguments in order to answer the
question “why is the plan a bad idea?” in
the 2NR – this helps the judge make a
final decision and weigh the arguments.
8
 SAMPLE BAD BALLOT

Division JV Judge Smith, John

Round 1 Room 245

AFF. TEAM Boston Latin Academy D POINTS RANK NEG. TEAM Excel High School C_ POINTS RANK

1A John Sanchez 27.5 3 1N Peter Kim 28.5 1

2A Jane Johnson 28 2 2N Nikquania Jacobs 27 4

Reason for Decision:

I voted for the affirmative team because they sounded great and had good explanation. I think they really knew their
argument. They gave good eye contact and could answer all the questions in cross examination.

THE TEAM WINNING THIS DEBATE WAS Boston Latin Academy D REPRESENTING THE AFF NEG

JUDGE SIGNATURE SCHOOL/AFFILATION ABC Company

9
Individual Feedback

1A John Sanchez 1N Peter Kim

 You were clear.  Don't stutter.

 Good eye contact.  Keep your head up.
 Great speech.  Be louder.

2A Jane Johnson 2N Nikquania Jacobs

 You were very convincing in your speech.  You were a persuasive speaker.
 Good eye contact.
 You answered all the questions in cross-
examination.

10