ARBITRATION GUIDE

World Schools Format Debate

General arbitration recommendations

Debates have a role not only in creating skills and abilities for argumentation and public
expression, but also in educating participants in the spirit of morality, teamwork and fair play. In this
sense, the role of arbitrators is important not only in assessing the argumentative and rhetorical side of
debates, but also in holding those who debate accountable. Therefore, arbitrators must at all times follow a
set of very clear principles:
- to discourage any kind of unethical behavior that comes from someone involved in the debate;
- to disregard both personal beliefs and any specialized knowledge he may have of the motion under
discussion;
- not to treat the team to which he gives the verdict as the team that was right, but as the team that
was more convincing in that round;
- to evaluate the evidence according to the qualitative and not quantitative criterion, putting in the
first place their quality and relevance;
- to encourage speakers to speak at a normal pace that can be understood by anyone, to use
vocabulary devoid of the jargon of debate;
- to complete the arbitration form in such a way that it can be used for informational and educational
purposes for the participants.

A. Decision making

Deciding on the winning team in a round can often be a very difficult task. Debates at the end of
which the winner is very clear are rare, and those in which both teams and have done their duty
flawlessly are even rarer. Regardless of the situation, as referees you should take a few minutes at the
end of the round to put your thoughts in order. Remember the basic obligations of teams:

Government (PRO) team

 1) presents the interpretation of the topic and the definitions of the key terms;

2) presents, demonstrates and reconstructs the arguments of his own case;

3) rejects the arguments of the Opposition case;

Opposition (CON) Team:

1) presents the position that the Opposition team adopts towards interpretation and definitions,

2) rejects the arguments of the Government's case;

3) presents, supports and reconstructs the arguments of the Opposition case.

Referee specifics in WS format

a) The referee may assess whether an argument is weak or strong even if the opposing team does
not consider it (for example, he may charge a weak argument even if it is not attacked by the opposing
team). Consequently, both teams can assume the neglect of those reasoning that they consider
irrelevant in the match.

b) The referee may not consider arguments or information that are untruthfully unanimously
accepted, penalizing the team in terms of content.

c) The referee is not allowed to take into account the specialized information he has in the
evaluation of the round (for example, in a motion/ topic that refers to a general issue of law and the
teams use a common understanding of some concepts, the referee does not have the right to be notified
regarding the interpretation he / she knows in specialized terms of the notion). It must adopt the
position of an intelligent, reasonable and impartial observer and evaluate the performance of teams
according to that standard.

Individual scores
It is the role of the referees to evaluate and score the individual performances of the speakers, as
well as to create a hierarchy of speeches according to the impact in the round. Referees must consider 3
major criteria in awarding individual scores: Content, Style and Strategy.
 According to the standard arbitration form, the score is awarded individually to each speaker as
follows:
Composition/ Content: 40% (24-32)
Style: 40% (24-32)
Strategy: 20% (12-16)
TOTAL SCORE: 100% (60-80)
In the concluding speeches (“Reply”), the score of each category is halved (if the the points for a
reply speech is 70, the speaker is going to receive 35).
Although the points for a speech are between 0 and 100, and those for criteria are a maximum of
40, 40, and 20, respectively, WSDC standards require that all scores given to speakers be in the range 80
(perfect speech) - 60 (extreme speech). weak or offensive). An average speech, with a balanced number of
good and weak attributes, will receive a score of 70. Of course, this standard does not ensure that all
referees will judge equally, or that any misunderstanding will be eliminated. After all, debates will always
retain a dose of subjectivity. However, what the above provisions succeed in minimizing dissensions and
forcing a justification as clear as possible.

Arbitration criteria
The content refers to the argumentation part: the construction of the arguments, the
reasoning, the evidence used. The way they are presented is irrelevant to the content part. But
here also comes the counter-argument and the re-argument of one's own arguments. A weak
argument entered in the round corresponds to a weak score obtained for that speaker, whether or
not the argument is subsequently attacked. Of course, a speaker who does not respond to a weak
argument risks being further pointed out.

➢ How do I evaluate the content of speeches?

In principle, speakers must demonstrate that their arguments are true and important. A team's
arguments must be interpreted tolerantly, but they must not be reconstructed in the sense that the
speakers will be given credit for something they did not actually say, or in the sense that some
arguments weigh more simply because the speakers "tried to say". an extraordinary idea that
belongs to the referee's imagination. Thus, if a speaker says "it's much harder to educate students
if you hit", you don't have to think "well, obviously he meant that students will be scared of the
prospect of physical pain and will not be able to concentrate in class" , but you have to think
"why?". Debators must explain their arguments, not the arbitrators to understand them based on
their own thinking.

The government must prove both that it is worth getting where they want to go and that their
policy is getting us there. The opposition must reject at least one of these two things, and most of
the time it is a good idea to reject both, but they will not always need to reject both in order to
win.

Last but not least, the content must be evaluated in itself, and not according to how it evolved
in the debate. A good argument remains a good argument even if it has been counter-argued, and
a weak argument remains a weak argument even if it has not been counter-argued at all.

Style is the criterion that can most often be misleading. He does not refer to "being stylish"
but rather to having his own style that allows a clear statement of arguments. What should matter
is the speaker's ability to be confident, to have a positive attitude, and to add to the arguments the
side of oratorical persuasion.

The strategy refers to the structure and use of time and discusses issues relevant to the
motion. The fulfillment of the specific role also falls into this category.

Regarding the first part, we can say that a good speech has an introduction, a content and a
conclusion, and along the way it makes clear references to the points being discussed. The order
of the arguments is natural, and the transition from one to another is smooth.

The use of time has in turn 2 components: the time frame and the use of an adequate amount
of time to deal with each argument. Regarding the time frame of the speech, a speaker who far
exceeds (for example, speaks more than 6 minutes) or speaks well below (23 minutes in a 5-
minute speech) the basic time will certainly be penalized, but not by a number of points that
would cancel out a good performance in the other chapters. It is equally important that a speaker
devote sufficient time to each argument, without insisting too much on a marginal example, and
making more than a mere mention of a central reasoning of the case.

Closely related to the last idea is another, namely that speakers should be clear about which
ideas are really important to the motion and which are the least important or even completely
irrelevant. A speaker who wastes his time explaining issues that have no impact in the round will
 certainly be penalized, and his team will waste valuable time explaining crucial issues. If the
argument is very clear, the reasoning is solid and there are many examples, but it only helps the
team to win the debate marginally, the speakers will receive a high score for the Content, but not
for the strategy.

➢ How do I know what the most important ideas are?

The value of an argument depends on:

a) How relevant is it in the debate?
b) How do teams relate to arguments?
c) How was the argument constructed?

Interventions can also contribute to a speaker's final score, but to a very small extent. The way in
which they are punctuated must be related to the general quality of the speech. If a speaker had a mid-
level speech but had some very important interventions for his team, he could receive an extra 12 points.
In a similar way, a speaker with a relatively good speech who refused any intervention and did not ask for
any during the speeches of the opposing team will be penalized by deducting 12 points. But a speaker
with a poor performance who did not have any brilliant interventions should not lose score because of
this. Likewise, a speaker with an excellent speech who also has a series of inspired interventions will not
be scored extra for them. Points are offered or deducted for interventions only when their quality differs
greatly (positively or negatively) from the quality of that speaker's speech.

Some restrictions considerations

Some teams are tempted to define motions in such a way as to narrow the debate. Without saying
that all restrictions are wrong, as they sometimes help to anchor the debate in reality or reduce the
spectrum of arguments so as to place the debate closer to the real debate, these restrictions must be
viewed with caution. Thus, they must in no way alleviate the burden of the Government team, placing
too much burden on the shoulders of the Opposition. The opposition is free to challenge the restrictions
and definitions of the Government team, as well as to present arguments that do not fold on this
restriction, but fold on the motion. Thus, in order to evaluate whether a restriction is correct or not, we
must look at it through 2 criteria:
 1) The criterion of common sense: is it sensible to assume that the debate takes place only where
the Government has established it? For example, it makes sense for a motion about the existence of a
right to a minimum standard of living to be restricted to Western democracies, where it is realistic to
talk about that right, with third world countries having big enough problems in ensuring even basic
rights. On the other hand, on a motion on school violence, it is not sensible for the Government to
restrict the debate on schools in Poland.

2) The criterion of relevance to the motion: does the restriction (or, better said in this case, the
model) of the Government team demonstrate the motion or not? Sometimes teams, even if they show
that their model deserves to be implemented where they set it, do not notice that this does not
automatically mean that the motion, as it is formulated, deserves to be implemented. For example, on
the motion "The education system should focus on providing equal results, not opportunities", a model
by which catalogs would be abolished and admission to college would be done by lottery, insofar as it
would be supported by arguments, would prove the motion. But on the motion "The organ donation
system should be introduced on the basis of the presumed agreement", a model that introduces in
addition to the presumed agreement and information campaigns proves the motion only insofar as the
benefits result from the presumed agreement and not exclusively from information campaigns.

Who wins the debate?

In the WS format of debate, it is not possible to give the verdict of a team and to discover later that
the other team has a higher total score. If this happens, it means that an error has crept in somewhere.
Either the scores do not reflect what happened in the round, or you have formed a subjective opinion
about who won the round. Return to the points awarded and verify that they were awarded truthfully.
Also, try not to be influenced by a single criterion when deciding on the winning team. It is possible that
the Government had slightly better constructed arguments than the Opposition and thus scored better on
Content, but lost considerably on the score given for Style and Strategy.
Strategy, content and style are interdependent. The submission of strong arguments is impossible
if they are not clearly explained, if their importance is not highlighted and if the arbitrator's interest is not
maintained during the speech. Without solid arguments, the style is rhetoric devoid of substance, a facade
through which an intelligent observer can easily see. As for the strategy, the arguments analyzed in a
brilliant way are not persuasive if they are irrelevant for the role to be assumed or if they ignore the basic
statements of the adverse party.
Thus, arbitrators should not evaluate any of these elements as vastly superior or inferior to the
others, but should evaluate them holistically. A speech cannot be convincing without a decent strategy, an
attractive style and relevant content. Holistic arbitration of a debate is what we expect an intelligent
arbitrator to do. The arbitrators must not forget that the debate is fundamentally about persuasion and
persuasion, and not about the technical fulfillment of criteria such as "raise 3 interventions" or "have an
interesting introduction".

What should I say in the feedback?

Feedback should contain 3 main elements (not necessarily in this order):

A. Decision - A brief presentation of the results of the debate.
B. Motivation of the decision - Explain the reasons why you decided that the victory should go to
the winning team so that both teams understand why the decision went one way or the other. This should
be the main part of the speech.
C. Constructive criticism at team level, the aim being for both teams to have a better quality
debate in the next round.

Recommended scoring grid:

The table below is not imperative, speeches do not have to have every feature of those
described to fit into a certain scale. Our role as arbitrators is to find the best match between the
speech and its corresponding margin.

79‐80 This speech is impeccable. The best speech given at a competition in Europe. These scores should
only be given when you reasonably do not foresee the possibility of a better speech at a competition
ever held in Europe.
76‐78 An impeccably executed speech, you have absolutely no objection to the speaker. Brilliant
arguments, almost impossible to fight, perfectly framed in the debate. One of the first 3 speeches
that were ever given in Europe.
74‐75 Excellent arguments, perfectly applied on the motion, completely relevant for the most important
ideas in the debate, at the same time supported by a complete analysis. It requires sophisticated
answers to be demolished. The style is very clear and very convincing. Fulfilling the almost perfect
 role and structure.
72‐73 Very good arguments, which refer to the main ideas of the debate. These are supported by clear and
well-explained reasoning, but which left opponents with some visible means of attack. By and large,
the discourse is clear and convincingly explained.
70‐71 The arguments are almost all relevant and often convincing. Occasionally, but not predominantly,
the speaker may have: a problem in explaining, simplistic argumentation, vulnerable to easy
remarks, approach to irrelevant arguments. The speaker captures attention, has a clear structure and
fulfills his role.
68‐69 Generally relevant arguments, some decently explained. However, there are errors of logic, the
approach of several irrelevant ideas and superficial arguments. The speaker manages to attract a lot
of attention, it is usually clear but rarely very convincing and sometimes difficult to understand. It is
a decent but incomplete attempt to fulfill the role of speaker, and the structure can be unclear.
66‐67 Some relevant arguments are made, but with a rudimentary explanation at best. Most of the time the
speaker is quite easy to understand, but his speech is not convincing. The structure of the discourse
is deficient, the role is partially fulfilled.
64‐65 Arguments are rarely relevant and rarely explained. The discourse is often unclear and confusing,
with a vaguely existing structure and an unsatisfactory role fulfillment.
62‐63 Speech rarely makes understandable statements. Almost impossible to follow, almost non-existent
structure, no understanding of the role of the speaker.
60‐61 It is unclear what this speech has to do with the debate, it is both confusing and tiring. There is no
structure and no fulfillment of the role. These scores should only be given if it is actually almost
impossible to conceive of a poorer performance.
 Arbitration form

GOVERNMENT (PRO) OPPOSITION (CON/ OPP)

Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Reply
Speaker 3 Reply
Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker r 3

_
Individual
Score
Total
* In awarding the individual score, the weight of the 3 components will be taken into account:
Content (40%), Style (40%) and Strategy (20%)

TOTAL SCORE PRO:

TOTAL SCORE OPP:

The winner Team is PRO/OPP :

Motivation of the decision (briefly - you can write more feedback on the back of the sheet)
shsheet)

REFEREE (Name and signature):