NHSDLC Judge Guidelines

NHSDLC 评委守则

Thank you for agreeing to judge a Public Forum debate tournament! Please read these
guidelines before your debate begins:

感谢您成为公共论坛辩论锦标赛的一名评委！请在比赛开始之前阅读以下守则

1 / How to run a debate

2 / Public Forum Debating: How it works

3 / Judging the Debate

4 / NHSDLC Public Forum Speaker Point Scale

5 / Judge Comment Sheet

6 / Ballot

7 / Flow Sheet
 How to run a debate

Before the Debate: 辩论开始前：

• Welcome the debaters and introduce yourself to them.
• 欢迎辩手并进行自我介绍。
• To begin the debate, you must flip a coin to determine who will speak in what order and on which side of the topic.
Teams will call out “number” or “flower” and the winning team can determine either the side (Pro vs Con) or
speaking order (1st vs 2nd); the losing team is allowed to make the remaining choice. Team A refers to the team that
speaks first.
• 辩论开始前要先掷硬币，决定发言顺序和辩题正反方。两支队伍分别会选择“数字”或“花”，掷硬币获胜队可以选择决定
正反方或决定发言顺序，另一队则可以对剩余一项做出选择。A 队即第一个发言的队伍。

Fill-out the ballot using team codes as listed on the schedule. To make things easier, you may ask Team A to sit on your left,
mirroring the ballot.
• 将队伍代码填入评分表。方便起见，你可以让 A 队坐在你的左侧（与评分表布局相符）。
• In most rounds you will have a volunteer, normally a student from the host school, who will help with timekeeping,
making a coin flip, and other logistical issues that may arise over the course of the debate.
• 大多数轮次中你会有一名志愿者（通常志愿者都是承办校的学生），他们会帮你计时、带领选手掷硬币以及负责其他事项。

Note: Recuse yourself from any possible conflicts of interest you may have with an individual or team you are judging.
Notify an NHSDLC staff member immediately if you have a relationship with a debater that could be considered a conflict of
interest.
注意：如果你跟任何人或队伍存在利益冲突的可能性，请不要参与其中。如果你跟一名辩手可能存在利益冲突，请立刻通知
NHSDLC 的员工。

During the Debate: 辩论进行中：

• Once the round has started, take thorough notes and do not interrupt!
• 一旦辩论开始，请开始记录详细笔记，不要打断辩论！
• Do not evaluate arguments based on your background knowledge of the topic.
• 不要根据自己对于辩题的背景知识进行裁决。
• Time the speeches according to the time limits listed on the ballot. When time is up, alert students and allow them to
finish their last sentence.
• 根据评分表上列出的时间限制为选手发言计时。时间用尽时请警告学生，但可以允许学生说完最后一句话。
• Each team has 4 minutes of “prep time” they can request to use throughout the round in whatever increments they
wish before or after any speech. Either the judge, or a volunteer should keep track of “prep time” used.
• 每支队伍有 4 分钟的“准备时间”，他们可以在整个辩论过程中的任何一次发言前 / 后使用，时间长短由队伍自行决定。评
委或志愿者应当记录各队使用的“准备时间”。

After the Debate: 辩论结束后：

• Please pay close attention to the side that each team chose in the debate and which spoke first and last. Check your
codes carefully. This is especially important when marking the winner of the debate.
• 请特别注意队伍的正反方和发言顺序。检查队伍代码是否填写正确。在填写获胜方时尤其要仔细检查代码是否与队伍一致。
• Determine the winner based on the content and quality of argumentation , and not on style or language level. Teams
should be judged in comparison to their opponents, so there are no such things as automatic wins or losses.
• 请根据辩论的内容和质量（而非风格和语言水平）决定获胜方。裁决过程中应该对两支队伍进行比较，以避免出现由于某一
特殊原因导致的自动落败或获胜的情况。
• Indicate which team won by writing their code and winning side of the debate. Write a clear, detailed reason for your
 decision on the ballot, referring to particular arguments made in the debate. Ties are not allowed.
• 请将获胜方的队伍代码和其代表的正 / 反方写在评分表上，并根据辩论过程中的具体论述在评分表上记录下清楚、详细的裁
决原因。平局的情况不允许出现。
• Determine speaker points (on a scale of 22 to 30, where 30 is the highest) based on a holistic assessment of the
debater's speaking style, presentation, and substance, but NOT on english ability. Speaker points may be assigned as a
tie, but multiples of the same rank (1 to 4, where 4 is the lowest) cannot be given.
• 根据辩手演讲风格、发言效果和内容的整体评估给出辩手个人得分（评分范围为 22-30，30 为最高），不要根据英语水平打分。
辩手个人得分可以出现同分，但是排名（1-4 名，第四名为最低）不能相同。
• DO NOT disclose your decision to the debaters, or give oral feedback! Your decision and its explanation should go on
the ballot sheet, and your individual remarks and comments about the debate should go on the comments sheet.
• 不要告诉辩手你的决定或给出任何口头反馈！请把你的决定和解释留在评分表上，把个人反馈和辩手评价留在意见表上。
• At the end of the tournament, students will receive a copy of the ballots and comment sheets, so offer detailed and
encouraging feedback!
• 在整个比赛的最后，学生们会收到评分表和意见表的复印件，请尽量给出详细、鼓励的评价！
 Public Forum Debating: How it works

Constructive Speeches - 5 minutes

In Public Forum, each team has 5 minutes to present their initial arguments. These two speeches, often called “cases,”
are generally prepared in advance and lay out the main arguments that will be debated for the rest of the round.

Cases are made up of three main parts:

• Defined important terms from the topic.
• A framework that explains how the judge should decide the winner of the round.
• Contentions that explain why a particular side of the topic is true.
Definitions are fairly simple. The first speaker from each side will elucidate difficult or unclear words in the topic through
definition.
Framework, or criteria, tells you as a judge how to decide if the topic is true or not, or how to decide which arguments are
the most important.
If the topic was “On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States,” our framework would tell
us whether economic interests or security interests were the most important?
Frameworks can also address moral considerations, for example in some circumstances a debater might want to say that
the debate should be decided based on providing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
Contentions are the main arguments that debaters present. They are reasons why a particular proposal is good, or
a statement is true. A complete argument has three basic components: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Of course,
depending on the level of the teams you are judging, these three basic components may be clearly labeled, or included
implicitly as part of the argument..
A claim or “tagline” of an argument is a statement that the debater is trying to prove true.
A warrant is the proof offered for the claim. Warrants are reasons to believe that the claim is true. Facts, data and statistics,
examples, logical analysis, and analogies are all warrants that can be used to support a claim made in the debate.
Impacts answer “so what?” If an argument is true, why should you as the judge care? Good impacts are very clear in
explaining the implications of arguments, why they are important to people in the real world and why they mean that team
should win the debate.

Crossfire - 3 Minutes
Immediately after the two constructive speeches, those same speakers will stand up for the first Crossfire and will ask
and answer questions. The first question is asked by whoever spoke first. The point of Crossfire is for debaters to seek
clarification about each other's cases, as well as to probe for weaknesses that can be exploited.

Note: Crossfire may sometimes get passionate and heated and you may be tempted to intervene, but as a judge you should
refrain from interjecting yourself into the debate. If a debater has acted offensively or rudely, do not interfere (unless they
are being abusive or physically threatening). You may, however, give them lower speaker points as a result and leave a
comment about improving their behavior.

Rebuttal Speeches - 4 Minutes

Rebuttal speeches each last for 4 minutes and are made by the second member of each team. This is where debaters move
from pre-prepared remarks to responding to their opponent's case and defending their own. Debaters may also use part of
this speech as an opportunity to extend their own case, either by adding explanations to arguments they've already made,
or by crafting entirely new ones if time allows.
2nd Crossfire - 3 Minutes
The same rules as before apply, only this time the questioning period is between the second speakers from each
team.

Summary Speeches - 2 Minutes

Summary speeches are similar to rebuttals, in that debaters must both respond to their opponent's attacks and
extend their own offense. However, summary speeches are only two minutes long, so debaters cannot answer every
single argument from their opponents and extend all of their case points. They must pick and choose the most
important arguments in the round, and explain why they matter the most.

Grand Crossfire - 3 Minutes

The Grand Crossfire is similar to the previous two crossfire periods, except now all four debaters participate. The
same basic rules apply as before.

Final Focus Speeches - 2 Minutes

Final Focus speeches are given by the second speaker on each team and are the debaters' last chance to make
an impression on the judge. A key thing to note about the Final Focus is that absolutely NO NEW ARGUMENTS OR
REBUTTALS are allowed. What debaters should do in this speech is comparatively weigh their arguments against
their opponents in order to convince you to vote in their favor.
 Judging the Debate

Deciding who won:

• Debate is not an english speaking competition. Debates are judged based on the quality and strength of the
debaters' ideas and arguments i.e. their content, not their style. If a debater is not eloquent, it will change how
well you know their arguments, but it still the ideas that are the basis for your decision.
• Put aside your biases and any preconceived notions you have about which side YOU think is correct going into
the debate.
• Remember, a team's arguments are always judged IN COMPARISON to the their opponent's. It is not based on a
previous held expectation, but on what was actually debated in the round.

How to fill in your Ballot:

• Fill in all the boxes on the ballot.
• In the blank section on the second half of the sheet, write your RFD or Reason For Decision. This is where you
write why one team won over the other. If you need more space, you may continue writing on the back of the
sheet.
• First, decide and write down which team's framework you are using to judge the debate and why you were
convinced of that framework.
• Second, write down 2 or 3 arguments that decided the outcome for you, and explain why a particular team won
that issue by referencing specific arguments and evidence given.
• Avoid general remarks such as “this team was more logical” or “this team gave more detail” as this does not
provide any explanation as to how the debate was adjudicated.
 NHSDLC Public Forum Speaker Point Scale
You may use half point increments as well.

Perfect.
Very good, arguments used in the debate were extremely topical, they demonstrated strong tactical
30 awareness, and are very compelling. Extremely persuasive with well structured arguments.
If this student were selling something, you would definitely buy it even if you had no real use for it,
and you'd buy five more to give to your family and friends.

Excellent.

29
The speech is mostly clear, and holds one's attention. Arguments are generally persuasive, well structured,
and explained in full detail.
If this student were selling something, you would definitely buy it, and you might buy an extra to use later.

Strong.
Arguments are mostly relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not often, the speaker may:
28 i) have shoddy explanation, ii) simplistic argumentation or iii) irrelevant contentions. The speaker holds
one's attention, provides clear structure, and exhibits a decent awareness of the topic.
If this student were selling something, you would almost certainly buy it from them.

Above Average.
Arguments are mostly relevant, demonstrates a good understanding of the issues. There may be gaps
in logic, irrelevant material, and unclear or simplistic argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the
27 audience's attention and is usually clear and compelling. The speech is well structured and shows an
understanding of tactics
If the student is trying to sell you something.
This student would probably succeed unless you had a strong reason not to buy it.

Average.
Arguments are generally relevant, and little explanation of them is given, obvious gaps in logic. The speaker

26
mostly holds the audience's attention and is usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may sometimes be
difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt to engage in debate.
If the student is trying to sell you something.
This student would succeed if you were on the fence about buying one before you met them.

Needs Improvement.

25
Relevant arguments are infrequently made, with very rudimentary explanation. The speaker is clear
enough to be understood the most of the time, but this may be unrewarding. Structure is poor.
If this student were selling something, they couldn't persuade you to buy it.

Needs Significant Improvement.

24
The speaker is not relevant, and rarely makes full arguments. Frequently is unclear and confusing.
If this student were selling something, not only would you not choose to buy one from them, you would
probably be less likely to buy it in the future.

Needs Very Significant Improvement.

23
The speech does not make relevant claims, not formulated as arguments. Hard to follow, no structure.
If this student were selling something, you would not buy the product and would be very unlikely to buy it
in the future.

Used ONLY in Extreme Situations or as Severe Penalty

Examples: Student used foul language and very abusive behavior in round.

22
Was unable to express any arguments whatsoever in English. Used less than ¼ of speech time.
If this student were selling something, not only would you develop a deep distaste for the product, but
you would also look up their company when you got home, to be sure that you never bought anything
from that company ever again.

Rankings: As well as giving speaker points remember to rank the 4 speakers in the room from 1 to 4.
2 speakers cannot have the same ranking however two speakers may have the same speaker points.. Rankings should
follow the order of speaker points. Example: a speaker with 28 points should have a higher ranking than a speaker with 27.
 Judge Comment Sheet 评委意见表

Round Number: Room: Group (A or B): Judge Name:

轮次： 赛场： 组别（A 或者 B） 评委姓名：

Please fill out this form for every round that you judge. This form allows you to make constructive comments or suggestions to students
that did not necessarily relate to your reason for decision. Please remember to write your reasons for decision on the ballot and use this
section to provide additional comments.
[A: outstanding, B: above average, C: Average, D: Needs Improvement, F: Significantly harmed your ability to win the round]
请在你主裁的每轮结束后填写此表。此表仅适用于在不泄露比赛结果和仲裁理由的情况下向选手提出意见和建议。
请谨记在评分表上依旧需要填写仲裁理由，本表格仅用于提供参考性评论。A 为优秀 B 为良好 C 为中等 D 为还需努力 F 较差（可
能因此输掉比赛）

Team A, Speaker 1 A 队 , 1 号辩手 Team B, Speaker 2 B 队 , 2 号辩手

Student Code: 辩手代码 : Student Code: 辩手代码 :

Quality of Arguments Quality of Arguments

A B C D F A B C D F
论述质量 论述质量
Clarity and Confidence Clarity and Confidence
A B C D F A B C D F
逻辑清晰及自信程度 逻辑清晰及自信程度
Overall Presentation Overall Presentation
整体演讲效果
A B C D F 整体演讲效果
A B C D F

Comments: 评价 : Comments: 评价 :

Team A, Speaker 3 A 队 , 3 号辩手 Team B, Speaker 4 B 队 , 4 号辩手

Student Code: 辩手代码 : Student Code: 辩手代码 :

Quality of Arguments Quality of Arguments

A B C D F A B C D F
论述质量 论述质量
Clarity and Confidence Clarity and Confidence
A B C D F A B C D F
逻辑清晰及自信程度 逻辑清晰及自信程度
Overall Presentation Overall Presentation
整体演讲效果
A B C D F 整体演讲效果
A B C D F

Comments: 评价 : Comments: 评价 :
 Topic: Urbanization in China has done more good than harm
Round Number: Room: Group (A or B): Judge Name:
轮次： 赛场： 组别（A 或者 B） 评委姓名：
Every round begins with a coin toss; the winning team has the option of choosing either the side (Pro or Con) or the speaking order (first or
second) in the round; the losing team makes the remaining choice, either side or speaking order. After the coin toss, record the following:
每一轮比赛均以抛硬币开始。抛硬币的胜方可以选择决定他们是正方还是反方，或是决定发言的顺序。抛硬币的败方将对余下一项做出选择。例如，
如果 X 队选择做正方（或反方），他们的对手 Y 队则将选择自己队是先行发言还是后行发言。抛硬币环节结束之后，请在下表中记录相应信息：
Team A (The Team Speaking First) Team B (The Team Speaking Second)
Team Code: Pro 正方 Points 分数 Rank Team Code: Pro 正方 Points 分数 Rank
队伍代码 Con 反方 20-30 排名 队伍代码 Con 反方 20-30 排名
Speaker 1 code: Speaker 1 code:
选手 1 代码 选手 2 代码
Speaker 3 code: Speaker 3 code:
选手 3 代码 选手 4 代码
LOW POINT
THE WINNER WAS (SIDE AND CODE): WIN?
确认辩手得
胜方（队伍代码以及正方还是反方）： 分低者获胜
吗？
Instructions: 注意事项
1. Judges should decide the round as it is debated, not based on their personal 1. 评委需要根据该轮辩论过程本身而非个人对辩题的看法进行评判。
beliefs. 2. 获胜队伍应为在辩论中能给出更多真实有力的论述的队伍，评委不应根据
2. Judges should award the win to the team who prevails in the logical clash of
发言风格决定胜负。
substantive arguments, as opposed to speaking style.
3. Presentation and speaking style should be awarded with high speaker points. 3. 请尽量对选手的发言风格给予高分。除非特殊情况，请不要打出低于 22 分
Please do not give speakers less than 22 points, except for in exceptional 的分数。
circumstances. 4. 将选手按 1-4 的顺序进行排名，第 1 名为最佳。排名应与选手得分相符，
4. Rank the speakers from 1 to 4, with 1 being the best. While speaker points can
并且不能并列，得分一致的选手可以有不同排名。
tie, ranks cannot.
5. Crossfire time should be dedicated to questions and answers. Except for in 5. 辩手们应该将交叉质询的时间用于提问和回答。除交叉质询环节外，选手
Crossfire, students may not interrupt opponent speeches. 不得打断对方发言 。
6. Please do not give oral critiques or comments. Write everything on the ballot 6. 赛后请勿给出口头评价或观点。如有评价请写在评分表和意见表上。每一
and comment sheet. Once you have filled out the ballot for each flight, please
轮的评分表填写完毕后，请立刻将其转交给志愿者或直接送到评分室。
return it to a runner or to the tab room as soon as possible.
7. No new arguments or evidence may be introduced in the Final Focus. Debaters 7. 最后陈述中不可加入新论点或新证据。辩手可以在该环节对此前的论述进
may weigh prior arguments or refute argument made in the preceding speech. 行比较或反驳对方之前的发言。
8. Ties are not permitted. You must select a winner. 8. 不得出现平局的情况。评委必须选择一支胜利的队伍。

Reasons for Decision (Please provide detailed reasoning, referring to arguments that debaters presented in the round)
评判理由（请根据辩手在本轮比赛中做出的论述给出具体的理由）：

Speech Times
Speaker 1 Constructive .........5 min
Speaker 2 Constructive .........5 min
Crossfire (1 & 2)* ..................3 min
Speaker 3 Rebuttal ...............4 min
Speaker 4 Rebuttal ...............4 min
Crossfire (3 & 4)* ..................3 min
Speaker 1 Summary .............2 min
Speaker 2 Summary .............2 min
Grand Crossfire (all)* … ........3 min
Speaker 3 Final Focus ..........2 min
Speaker 4 Final Focus ..........2 min
* The first question is asked by Team A
**4 minutes of prep time per side