ADJUDICATION

AN APPROACH FOR BUDDING JUDGES

WHO IS AN ADJUDICATOR?

YOUARE LIKE A
JUDGE! NO, INSTEAD
YOU ARE THE JUDGE!
YOU ARE AN AVERAGE
REASONABLE PERSON
WAIT, WHAT? I’m just
average?
THIS DOESN’T MEAN
 YOU are AUDIO RECORDING!
 you use that intelligence to impose a
win or a lose even if YOU maybe or
should be the smartest person in the
room.
 You are a ghost.
 You are not Trump.
THIS MEANS
 Attempts to evaluate logically what the best thing to do
 Uses as inputs the arguments made by the teams
 Has the sort of knowledge of someone who reads the front
pages and world section of a high quality newspaper
regularly
 Has a grounding of world history
 Is not a specialist in ay subject, and thus will not be
familiar with technical vocabulary or specialist literature
 THE BIGGER PERSPECTIVE
IN THE DEBATE

INNOCENT UNTIL
PROVEN GUILTY
JUDGING DEFITIONAL CHALLENGES:

SQUIRREL
TAUTOLOGY AND
TRUISM
TIME AND PLACE SET
ASSESSING POLICIES
Most likely, policy debates would require government to push for
a new solution or a framework that is already working somewhere in
the world. The policy being status quo somewhere in the world is
acceptable, as long as the debate exists. There can be motions which
are in defense of status quo, so we should not be trapped with the
mindset that all policy motions are solutions to problems.
Sometimes, they are just thereto make the world a better place.
There are instances wherein opposition will not present a new
policy, and this is fine. As long as they provide reasons not to do the
policy, then a point of disagreement is still made. These usually come
in the form of proving that having the policy will make the situation
worse or by proving that there is a solution already present and this
new proposal will just jeopardize the situation.
Sample
Sample motion: THBT the US should withdraw military aid from Israel
GOV: Withdrawing military aid decreases Israel’s aggression towards Palestine;
makes them think twice of their current actions (i.e. settlements, etc.)
Examples where opposition does not create a point of disagreement:
A. If OPP agrees with the problem (Israel’s aggression towards Palestine) but does
NOT provide a comparative of why the situation now (or their counter-policy, if
ever) is better/less worse. Only rebuttals and responses that the policy is
ineffective. In this situation, there is no point of disagreement because there
is no comparison of worlds (i.e. a world where the US withdraws military aid
vs. a world that it does not).
B. If OPP disagrees with the problem (Israel’s aggression towards Palestine), says
there is actually a different problem to solve(hypothetical problem: dealing with
Israel’s insecurity), but does NOT say why this problem is more important. In this
situation, there is no point of disagreement because there is no comparison of
priority (i.e. which problem should we be dealing with first, in relation to the
withdrawal of aid).
ASSESSING AND APPRECIATING
ARGUMENTS
 The results of the debate should depend on what
teams do and don’t say. Judges are not allowed to
enter and intervene in the debate.
 However, it is important to note that not all
arguments stand as important.
 Your appreciation of the speeches must value
rebuttals and arguments equally.
CERTAIN THINGS THAT DOESN’T MATTER
 Certain
things do not matter (in
themselves) in debating:
• The number of arguments a team
makes,
• How clever or sophisticated the
argument was,
• How interesting the argument was.
ASSESSING WHIP SPEECHES

 WHIPSSUMMARIZE AND SHOULD SUMMARIZE

THE DEBATE IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR
SIDE.
 WHIPSARE CRYSTALLIZATION AGENTS, NOT
CARPENTERS.
 DO NOT PENALIZE NEW MATERIAL.JUSRT
IGNORE IT.
SOME PITFALLS TO AVOID IN DECISION-
MAKING AND FEEDBACK
 Dealing in generalities rather than specifics
 Failing to judge the debate as it happened
 Granting certain ‘’classes’’ of arguments undue
priority
 ‘Penalty judging’
 Judging on Format Rather than Content
Types of Motions

This House would (do x)

This House would, as (A), do (x)
This House would that (x)
This House supports/regrets(x)
Scoring a debater
Score Meaning
81 – 83 - All of the speech was relevant to the debate, the responses were
damaging to the other teams, and the substantiation was quite rigorous and
concretized
77-80 - All of the speech was relevant to the debate, the responses were
generally strong, and the substantiation was generally rigorous and concretized
74-76 - All or most of the speech was relevant to the debate, the responses were
generally sound and logical, and the substantiation was generally sound and
logical
70-73 - Majority of the speech was relevant to the debate but the responses were
generally dismissive or weak and/or the substantiation was generally illogical
67-69 - All or most of the speech was irrelevant to the debate, absolutely or
mostly not responsive, absolutely or mostly no substantiation
How debaters score you?
Score Meaning
1 - Automatic complaint and conflict. The judge did not talk at all and never even attempted to justify
his/her decision, or did attempt to justify his/her decision but used standards that are irrelevant to the
rules of debate (such as personal beliefs, personal opinion, and ideas that did not come out in the
debate INSTEAD of logic, believability of examples, responsiveness, and level of substantiation) or used
arguments and ideas that did not come out in the debate (stepping in).
2 - 3 - The judge spoke but could not articulate a coherent logical reasoning of his/her justification;
grossly misapplied the standards in assessing a debate (such as blatantly considering wrongly an idea as a
new matter); did not listen to a substantial portion of the debate and could not recall or discuss such
portions.
4-6 - The judge articulated a coherent logical reasoning of his/her justification but was neither
comprehensive nor detailed, or definitely misapplied some standards in assessing a debate, or definitely
misunderstood some parts of the debate, or was vague and ambiguous in discussing some parts of the
debate.
7-8 - The judge articulated a clear and coherent reasoning of his/her justification but was only either
comprehensive or detailed, or arguably misapplied some standards in assessing a debate, or arguably
misunderstood some parts of the debate.
9-10 - The judge articulated a clear, coherent, comprehensive, and detailed reasoning of his/her
justification, correctly applied the standards in assessing a debate, and did not misunderstand any part
of the debate.