IVED 2020

Adjudicator’s Kit
1 The Basics
Let’s start slow

2
What do you need to do as an
adjudicator?

◉ Assess and decide the winner of the debate

◉ Score each speaker in the debate
◉ Provide a verbal adjudication

3
 Being a globally informed
citizen

◉ Understand the rules of Australasian Parliamentary Debating

◉ Read the news on the regular and be familiar with common
knowledge/facts
◉ Have the ability to think, and thus assess claims made by
speakers in a debate

4
 Assessing arguments

◉ Understand what the speakers are aiming to prove

◉ Weigh the speakers’ explanation of their assertions or claims
◉ Weigh the significance and relevance of the arguments
◉ Examples and contexts can support arguments but not replace
explanations
◉ Labels or separation between arguments and rebuttals are not
crucial - do not discredit speakers simply due to the absence of
labels

5
 Assessing issues/clashes

◉ A debate may consist of many issues. Identify the core issues of

the debate (those focused upon or heavily discussed by the
teams)
◉ Issues may or may not be explicitly stated by the speakers; be
attentive and fair in identifying them

6
 Assessing dynamics

◉ Be attentive and carefully weigh the interactions/engagements

between teams
◉ A team may be considered to win on an issue/clash if,
○ They are able to explain their arguments better;
○ They are able to deconstruct their opponents’ argument
better; or
○ They are able to defend themselves from rebuttals better.
○ etc.

7
 Who wins?

◉ Which team won the most important clashes?

◉ Which team won the most clashes?
◉ Which team had better explanations of their arguments?

8
2 Scoring
Make sure you get it right

9
 10

Scores are objective approximation of

how a speaker performed in a
particular round.

“
 Scoring Range

Substantive Speeches Reply Speeches

❏ Range of 67-83 ❏ Range of 33.5-41.5
❏ No decimals ❏ You may use decimals (of 0.5
points)
❏ Keep in mind that reply speeches
are separate from substantive
speeches. DO NOT score a reply
speech by merely dividing the
score of a speaker’s substantive
speech in half.
11
 Scoring Criteria (Substantive)

67 The speaker is visibly very confused and very confusing. No structure, no role fulfilment, no relevant
content.

68 The speaker rarely makes relevant claims. The speech is difficult to follow, has little to no structure, and
shows lack of awareness of the speaker’s role.

69 The debater is often relevant, but rarely makes a complete argument. The speech is frequently unclear
and confusing, has problematic structure, but reflects awareness of the speaker’s role.

70-71 The speaker frequently makes relevant arguments, but with very simplistic explanation. The speech is
understandable most of the time although difficult to follow, has poor structure, and indicates poor
attempt in role fulfilment.

72-74 The arguments are generally relevant with several explanations, but obvious logical gaps. The speech
may have multiple simplistic or irrelevant explanation. The speech is clear but not compelling, shows
incomplete role fulfilment, and has imperfect structure.

75 Average in every aspect.

12
 Scoring Criteria (Substantive)

76-78 The arguments are almost exclusively relevant and frequently persuasive, although the speaker
occasionally slips into lack of explanation and simplistic arguments prone to strong response. The speech
has clear structure and successful role fulfilment.

79-80 The speech is almost completely clear, with relevant arguments and sufficient explanation. The speaker is
persuasive and has successfully fulfilled their role. The structure is unlikely to be problematic.

81 The speaker has very good arguments that engage well with the most important issues in the debate and
is very compelling.. The speaker has clear delivery and is very persuasive, with almost-flawless role
fulfilment and structure. Opponents need to provide sophisticated responses to refute the speaker’s
arguments.

82 The speaker has brilliant arguments - very well explained - and successfully engages with the main issues
in the debate. The speaker is very clear and very compelling. Opponents need to provide extremely
sophisticated responses to refute the speaker’s arguments

83 Best speech you have and will ever hear in your current and next life. Completely flawless. Literally life
changing. Almost impossible to rebut.
13
 Scoring Criteria (Reply)
33.5-34 The reply speech makes the debate more confusing instead of clarifying it.

34.5-35 The reply speaker mentions only the assertions of their team.

35.5-37 The reply speaker attempts to review the explanations of arguments, with inadequate structure. The speech
is inconclusive.

37.5 The speaker provides average review of the debate and is able to summarize important points in the
debate. The speaker is conclusive to their own arguments, although they may not be advantageous to the
speaker’s team.

38-39.5 The reply speaker provides a review that highlights the strengths of their team as well as the opponent’s
weaknesses.

40-40.5 The reply speaker provides a very compelling review of their team’s strengths over their opponent, and is
able to frame certain issues of the debate to their advantage.

41-41.5 A very convincing reply speech that strengthens your confidence in your decision and/or has the ability to
change your decision had you initially gave their opponent the win. 14
 Margins

1-2 A very close debate, with minor differences separating the teams

3-4 Close to clear debate.

5-9 A relatively clear decision, with one team having obvious advantage over its opponent.

10+ A very clear win.

15
 Delivering your
3 adjudication
We’re almost done!

16
 How do you do it?

◉ The goal of a verbal adjudication is to explain the reasoning

behind your decision in a manner that the teams will
understand.
◉ Adjudicators may have different methods in conveying their
adjudication, but should always pay attention to their structure,
clarity, and content of their reasoning.
◉ Do not reiterate the speakers’ arguments. You should compare
the teams’ points/arguments.
◉ Keep it concise.

17
4 Reminders
Or more like warnings

18
 Keep in mind...

◉ Adjudicators should not insert their own opinions in adjudicating. Adjudicators should not give a
team a lose simply for being in a role or giving an argument against the adjudicators’ stance or
personal opinion.
◉ Adjudicators should adjudicate the debate as it is. Do not complete arguments in your head if a
speaker makes any incomplete arguments, even if you may understand what the speaker
means. Be careful in assessing common jargons!
◉ Speakers or teams may have different styles of speaking. Do not discredit a speaker or team just
because you are not familiar with a certain style.
◉ There is no automatic lose in a debate. A speaker or team’s position/rank in a debate should be
valued relative to their opponents’.
◉ Scores reflect the result of the debate. The total score of a winning team should be more than
that of its opponent.

19
Good luck!
20