NSDC 2023

Debate & Judge Briefing

Aurellia Sherlina Siswanto, Kezia Ascencio,
Leonardus Hans Sebastian Tahyudin, Tengku Omar Azfar Haqqani

Credits to: WSDC 2023 Adjudication Core

Agenda

Basics of World Schools Judging in the WSDC

01 Debating
04 Format
The Marking/Scoring Range
02 The WSDC Format Marking 05 in the WSDC Format
System
Debating in the WSDC
03 Format
 Basics of World
Schools Debating
General Rule
● Each debate will contain two teams, each team consisting of three speakers. One of the first two speakers
of each team must also act as the Reply Speaker.
○ The two sides of the debate are the Proposition and Opposition teams.
● Speeches last for 8 minutes, with a maximum addition of 15 seconds.
● POIs between 1:00 and 7:00.
● 30-minute preparation time.
○ No external help in any shape or form, except printed materials (e.g. articles, journals, etc.) that
have been prepared prior to the motion release. These materials cannot be used during speeches.
● Speakers are only allowed to bring their own notes.
○ Only paper-based note-taking for speakers, with exceptions for individuals with medical reasons.
Speaking Order
Roles and Responsibilities (Team)
Roles Proposition
Team ● Define the motion clearly in a way
that is fair to both teams
● May present their characterisation of
the status quo
● Advance constructive arguments in
favour of their case
● Where appropriate, identify what the
problem is and present a solution to
the identified problems
Opposition
● Must oppose the motion
● May set up their case purely on rebuttal
of Proposition, though this is
strategically risky
● May have substantive arguments of its
own, including proposing a
counter-model
Roles and Responsibilities (Speakers)
Roles Proposition
1st Speakers ● Define the motion, relevant
burden(s) and the metric(s) by which
to evaluate the debate
● Introduce an action plan (model), if
the team chooses to tackle the
motion with one
● Advance and develop constructive
arguments
● Flag the case division between the 3 ●
Proposition speakers
Opposition
● Challenge the definition, if necessary
● Clarify relevant burden(s)/metric(s) for
the debate, if necessary
● Provide rebuttals to the 1st Proposition
● Introduce their own stance (detailed
under “Team Roles”)
● Bring their own constructive
arguments (advisable)
Flag the case division division between
the 3 Opp speakers
Roles and Responsibilities (Speakers)
Roles Proposition Opposition

2nd Speakers ● Deal with definitional challenges, if
necessary
● Provide rebuttals to the 1st
Opposition
● Extend and further develop
constructive arguments
● Provide rebuttals to the 2nd
Proposition’s extension
● Extend and further develop the
constructive arguments, if the
Opposition has any
Roles and Responsibilities (Speakers)
Roles Proposition Opposition

3rd Speakers ● Small substantive arguments, if ● Small substantive arguments, if flagged

flagged in the 1st Proposition in the 1st Opposition
● Provide rebuttals to the Opposition’s ● Provide rebuttals to the Proposition’s
case case

Reply ● Bring a holistic overview of the debate

Speakers ● Compare both teams’ contributions to the debate
● Explain why they think their side won the debate, without adding non-derivative
arguments for their side
Notes on 2nd Speakers
● Traditionally, the norm was for Second Speakers to have one or two new, unique, independent, and explicit
argument(s).
● More recently, there is a trend at WSDC that sees Second Speakers not having one or two new, unique,
independent, and explicit argument(s). Instead, Second Speakers engage in extensive weighing, framing,
rebuttal action, and advanced stakeholder analysis.
● The NSDC 2023 Adjudication Core, much like the Vietnam WSDC 2023 Adj. Core believes that no
approach, in and of itself, is always better than the other. We encourage teams to always observe the
debate as it goes in order to understand which strategy would fit the context best.
● Second Speakers should introduce new material (e.g. new examples, advanced stakeholder analysis,
additional logical links, more impacts, more/new weighing or framing, etc.), even if it is not a new argument.
The Second Speaker speech should not be a mere repetition of the First Speaker.
Notes on 3rd Speakers
● Third Speakers, first and foremost, have the responsibility to respond to the other team’s case. The Third
Speakers from either team may provide an entirely new, unique, independent, and explicit argument, if
and only if it was flagged in the First Proposition/Opposition speech.

○ However, it is not strategic to leave the strongest material to the Third Speaker as it shows poor
prioritisation by the team.

○ To clarify, new material is defined as anything that has not been mentioned in the debate, and
cannot be traced to analyses already provided in the debate (e.g. an entirely new and independent
argument).

○ Additionally, even if a material is not considered new, it could still be considered as late.

○ Evolution of material refers to the progressive development of a piece of material down the bench,
with the material changing to respond to new aspects of the debate. This is distinct from late
material as an evolved material has been consistently engaged with throughout the debate.
Notes on Reply Speakers
● In essence, the Reply Speech is a biased summary of the debate from the team’s viewpoint, including a
response to the other side’s case.

● A good reply speech does not just report on the debate that happened, but contributes to the team’s
overall strategy and approach in the debate, in order to shape how the debate has evolved and panned
out.

● A reply speaker may respond to an existing argument by raising a new example that illustrates that
argument, but may not otherwise introduce a new argument. However, they have to be clearly derivative,
and even then, if late, could be considered a poor strategy.

● It is also possible for teams to win a debate round because of the reply speech.

● The Reply Speaker must be either the First or Second Speaker.

Points of Information (POIs)
● POIs are allowed between the 1st and 7th minute of the speech.

● Speakers should stand up when offering POIs. POIs should not be offered sitting down, unless the speaker
is physically unable to stand up.

● POIs should be announced verbally with either “point”, “point of information”, “on that point” or other words
that do not announce the point before it is delivered (e.g. “on the point of freedom”, “on the model”, etc).

● Speakers offering POIs, if accepted, must complete their POIs within 15 seconds.

● Speakers are not allowed to heckle or barrack speakers when offering POIs, e.g. having another speaker
standing up immediately after a POI was rejected. POIs should be spaced out, with at least a 15-30 seconds
gap between the offering of each POI.
The WSDC Format
Marking System
The WSDC Marking System
● Debaters debating under the WSDC format are marked according to the tripartite standards that include Content,
Style, and Strategy.
○ Content (weighted at 40% of the overall score) refers to what is said in the debate.
○ Style (weighted at 40% of the overall score) refers to how something is being said in the debate. It is
important to note that style does not, in fact, refer to accent, use of cue cards, immutable characteristics
such as pitch or tone. Style mostly revolves around word choice, pace, volume, and speed.
○ Strategy (weighted at 20% of the overall score) refers to why something is being said in the debate. This
typically involves motion interpretation, burden identification, time allocation, team and speakers’ consistency,
given and answered POIs, weighing, etc.
● Crucially, the three marking schemes are not discrete categories that are marked independently. Rather, the three
categories work together to form a cohesive and persuasive speech.
“Content”
● “Content” refers to the materials provided in the debate, whether that be substantive arguments,
rebuttals, content of POIs, responses to POIs, and so on.
● This category specifically evaluates the quality of the material(s) being presented in terms of analytical
rigour and the use of examples or illustrations. This includes the following:
● Does the content skip logical steps or miss certain process analysis?
● Does the conclusion follow from the premises and development of the materials?
● Is the content well-supported by a range of good quality examples or illustrations? Or was it
supported by personal anecdotes or hypothetical fiction?
● Is the rebuttal given sufficiently responding to the claim given? How strong is the rebuttal compared
to the claim it means to refute?
● Does the rebuttal respond to the “evolution of materials” in the debate, or is it responding to just a
glimpse of an argument that was developed quite early in the debate?
“Style” (1/2)
What “Style” is:
● An appropriate word choice to highlight the
message of the content
● Eye contact with the audience (i.e. judges)
● Body movement and hand gestures
● Voice projection and control
● Articulation and enunciation
● Speed of delivery
● Variation in delivery (e.g. variation in pace
and tone depending on the content,
variation in tonality to emphasise on certain
points, etc.)
● Effective use of humour
What “Style” is NOT:
● Accents or immutable characteristics of
one's voice (e.g. one’s pitch)
● Whether one uses cue/index cards, A4
paper, and so on.
● The use of jargon (e.g. “structural reason”,
“epistemic access”, “state power principle”,
“free rider problem”, or “historiographical
orientation”).
“Style” (2/2)
Style is credited to the extent that it adds or diminishes value to the persuasiveness of the speech given. This looks
like:

● If a piece of substantive analysis is well analysed and persuasive, but the speaker’s style did not increase
its persuasiveness, then style would be average, while content would be above average.
● If a piece of substantive analysis is not well-analysed and unpersuasive, but the speaker’s style in
rhetorically weighing the importance of the claim was successful in making the argument stick in the
round, then style would be above average, while content would be below average.
● If a piece of substantive analysis is well analysed and persuasive, and the speaker’s style added to its
persuasiveness by using emotive rhetoric, then style and content would both be above average.
“Strategy”
“Strategy” refers to “why” something is said in a debate. It is practically the sum total of all the choices that are
made in the context of a debate, dealing with:

● Motion interpretation (definition, approach, direction)

● Time allocation, prioritisation, and structuring of materials in a speech
● Correct identification of issues in the debate
● Consistency within and between speeches
● POI Action (note: not the response to the POI (this is marked under “Content”, but rather whether the
speaker having the floor accepts the POI offered by their opponents)
● Weighing and use of comparisons
● Framing
● Relevance of content to the debate
Debating in the
WSDC Format
Setting up the Debate: Motion
● A motion is a topic to be debated in the round. It can be phrased in several ways, usually starting with “This
House”. Who “This House” is changes based on the motion, but usually it is the state or a group of neutral
actors (“we” as a collective). In other times, it may be a specific actor that is defined in the wording.

● “Information Slides” are sometimes provided to provide clarity and necessary knowledge for the purpose of
the debate. Any information on this slide is assumed to be true for the debate, and should be treated as
part of the motion by teams and judges.
Setting up the Debate: “Fiat”
● “Proposition fiat” refers to the mutual understanding that the action specific in the motion is assumed to be
possible. This cannot be contested; though it does not mean perfect implementation of the action
specified in the motion.

● For instance, on “This House would reserve 30% of the seats in Parliament for female candidates”; the
motion only assumes that reservation of seats is a policy that the parliament would agree to pass. However,
the motion does not assume that the seats will be allocated in a way that would benefit women. The motion
also does not assume that there will be no backlash from conservative or patriarchal sections of society.
Setting up the Debate: Opposition Strategy
● It is not mandatory for the Opposition to have a countermodel / counterprop in the debate. However, it
might be strategic for them to have one, depending on the motion. If the Opposition chooses to have a
countermodel, they have as much fiat as the Proposition.

○ Their countermodel must therefore be: (1) mutually exclusive from the Proposition model, and (2)
does not use more resources than the Proposition. Opposition can also choose to defend the status
quo (or some variation of it).

● In some cases, the motion may be explicit on whether the Opposition has to set a model (and what kind of
model). For instance, on “This House believes that X should do Y instead of Z”, the Opposition must defend
“Z” and not anything else.
Setting up the Debate: Burdens
There are two possible approaches of identifying burdens:
● When the motion is not worded as an absolute (e.g. This House would ban cosmetic surgery)
○ The Proposition team must prove or defend why it should be done generally speaking, not beyond
reasonable doubt.
○ The Opposition team must prove or defend why it should not be done generally.
● When the motion is worded as an absolute (e.g. This House believes that democracy is the best form of
governance)
○ The Proposition team must prove why the statement is true in the significant majority of cases,
though not all conceivable cases.
○ The Opposition team must prove why the statement is only true in the significant minority of cases,
and thus cannot be persuasive in just one or two instances.
Motion Types: “This House would”
● The Proposition team is required to explain why such proposed action(s) are necessary. This means that the
Proposition team could benefit from coming up with a structured policy or model, though it is not
mandatory.
● It is important to note that this type of motion does not require a perfect implementation; but rather why
the act itself is good or not. This motion type also assumes that whatever is being proposed is NOT the
status quo (or at least, not a global status quo).
● For instance, if the motion is “This House would ban all private universities”; the Proposition team could
benefit from explaining how the ban will take place (i.e. the timeline and the procedures) and how the
repercussions of the ban can be remedied (i.e. the fate of the active students and lecturers in the private
universities). The Opposition cannot argue that the parliament will never pass such a policy (because it
goes against the “Proposition Fiat” principle), but they can argue why the ban will only bring more harm
than good.
Motion Types: “As X, This House would”
This type of motion is also known as an “Actor Motion”. This means that:

● The debate happens from the perspective of the stipulated actor. All arguments must be linked to why
“Actor X” cares or would care about doing “Action Y”.
● However, it does not mean that Actor X is always self-interested or that principle arguments cannot be
made. This just means that teams must show why Actor X cares about that principle or perspective.

For example, if the motion is “As Indonesia, This House would lower the voting age to 15”, then the motion requires
teams to specifically discuss the relevance of the policy in Indonesian context and why it is or is not within the
interest of Indonesia. This means that arguments about benefits in other countries with the same policy may not be
relevant, unless teams can connect why they are relevant to the situation in Indonesia and why then Indonesia
should care about them.
Motion Types: “This House believes that”
Variation #1: “Value Judgment / Analysis / Principle” debate
● This type of motion does not usually require a policy set-up, but may be useful if teams wish to use one to illustrate
what they envision the new world would look like.
○ For instance, if the motion is “This House believes that parents should have access to their children’s social
media accounts”; the debate is not about mandating parents to always have access to their children’s social
media accounts, but rather about how the world would have looked if this statement was true.
● This type of motion is also not about “changing” the status quo, but about evaluating the validity of a certain view.
○ For instance, if the motion is “This House believes that the ASEAN has failed”; the debate is not about
abolishing ASEAN per se, but rather about whether the statement is true and valid depending on the metrics
used in the debate (i.e. to define “failure”).
● This type of motion may also sometimes require a metric / criteria / parameter to justify a team's persuasiveness.
○ For instance, if the motion is “This House believes that school uniforms bring more harm than good”; then
teams are expected to define the metrics or parameters to determine why the element being discussed brings
more “good” or “harm”.
Motion Types: “This House believes that”
Variation #2: “Soft-Policy”
● While this is not a “hard” policy motions (i.e. “This House would”); but because the motion is often worded
as “This House believes that [X] should [Y]”, teams could benefit from explaining the likely manifestation of
the Actor X in doing Action Y.

○ For instance, if the motion is “This House believes that governments should ban private
universities”; teams could explain how the ban will manifest in order to describe their benefits or
harm further.

○ In this context, setting up mechanisms or models is not mandatory, but teams could benefit from
doing so.
Motion Types: “This House supports/oppose”
● Teams do not have to reimagine the world, but they must support or oppose X in the context of the status
quo.
● In certain instances, the Proposition Team might need to defend why having more (if “supports”) or less (if
“opposes”) of X is good for the world. Should it happen though, the Opposition Team might want to adjust
their strategy and therefore argue why having less (if “supports”) or more (if “opposes”) of X is good for the
world.
○ However, arguing on whether having more or less of X is not always how this motion type should
be debated, as the virtue of supporting or opposing X may not have to rely on the quantity or the
amount of X.
● For example, if the motion is “This House supports the creation of an international body to regulate social
media companies”; then the Proposition team should defend why such an international body will bring
betterment to the world in the context of regulating social media companies while the Opposition team
should defend why the existence of such an international body either will not be effective (and therefore
unnecessary) or will make things worse (based on the metrics or parameters in the debate).
Motion Types: “This House regrets”
● Debates under this motion type are retrospective debates, which means that teams need to evaluate whether the
existence of X is good for the world or not.

● The Proposition team needs to reimagine what a world without X would look like (also known as counterfactual) and
why this reimagined world (without X) is better than the status quo (i.e. the world with X).

○ The Proposition team must explain why that counterfactual is likely to take place in absence of X.

○ The Opposition team can contest the counterfactual provided by the Proposition team (i.e. by proving why it is
unlikely or not possible to take place in absence of X).

○ However, in general, in this type of motion, the Opposition team must defend the status quo unless specified
otherwise.

● For example, if the motion is “This House regrets the rise of social media journalism”; the Proposition team must
explain why social media journalism is bad for the world and therefore the counterfactual of traditional journalism
thriving is likely and better. The Opposition must defend the status quo where social media journalism is on the rise
and why it is better than the Proposition’s counterfactual.
Motion Types: “This House prefers”
Variation #1: “This House prefers [X] to [Y]”
● Debates under this motion type are a comparison between X and Y. The Proposition team must defend X and the
Opposition must defend Y. The Opposition team is not allowed to make a new comparative (i.e. “Z”) under this
motion type.

Variation #2: “This House prefers a world where [X]”

● Debates under this motion are principally similar with “This House regrets [X]” motion; because [X] is practically the
counterfactual of the status quo. The difference lies in the virtue that the Proposition team is not “regretting”
something per se, but rather wishes for the world to have something that it currently does not have (or does not have
enough of).

● Therefore, the Proposition team must defend why the reimagined world with X is ultimately better or more preferable
than the status quo. On the other hand, the Opposition team must defend why the status quo is more preferable (i.e.
the world without X).
Defining the Motion (things to avoid part 1)
It is expected for teams to debate under generally acceptable definitions. Therefore, teams should avoid the following:

Squirreling Squirreling is an act to distort the topic and define it in a way that violates the spirit of the motion.

e.g. “This House would ban gambling” cannot be defined as banning risky behaviours such as taking hard
drugs, as a way of “gambling with one’s life”. Gambling has an obvious meaning in this context, i.e. where
people would bet some amount of money to win more through different mediums or “games”.

Disallowing For example, if the motion is “This House supports cosmetic surgery”, the Proposition team cannot define
opposition room for supporting it only for burn victims. This would make it impossible for the Opposition to do the debate.
debate Therefore the reasonable definition for the Proposition team is to support cosmetic surgery in all contexts.
Defining the Motion (things to avoid part 2)
It is expected for teams to debate under generally acceptable definitions. Therefore, teams should avoid the following:

Refusing to debate For example, if the motion is “This House would restrict civil liberties in the name of national security”, the
the motion at the level Proposition team cannot just exclusively defend compulsory ID cards as a form of “restricting civil liberties”
of specificity or as it is too narrow. It may be a part of it, but the debate extends beyond this example to a more general
abstraction the principle.
motion requires
Defining the Motion (things to avoid part 3)
It is expected for teams to debate under generally acceptable definitions. Therefore, teams should avoid the following:

Place-setting Place-setting in this context refers to narrowing the debate arbitrarily to specific places not specified by the
motion.

For example, if the motion is “This House would ban commercial surrogacy”, it is not legitimate to set the
debate “only in low-income nations”. Examples from these countries may be used, but the debate has a
global context.

Place-setting is allowed only when the motion specifies so. For example, if the motion is “This House would
ban non-democratic countries from hosting international sporting events”; then the Proposition team may
restrict the definition to countries that demonstrate reasonable criteria for what constitutes a lack of
democracy.
Defining the Motion (things to avoid part 4)
It is expected for teams to debate under generally acceptable definitions. Therefore, teams should avoid the following:

Time-setting Time-setting in this context refers to narrowing the debate arbitrarily to a time that is not the present when
unspecified by the motion.

For example, if the motion is “This House believes that citizens should engage in civil disobedience to
protest unjust laws”, the Proposition team cannot define the policy in the context of apartheid in South Africa
from 1948 until the 1990s. They may use this as an example, but not as the entire context of the debate.

Time-setting is allowed only when the motion specifies so, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, if the
motion is “This House believes that NATO should not have withdrawn combat troops from Afghanistan”, the
Proposition team can set the context of the debate to the period when NATO contemplated the withdrawal
of troops (which was in 2011 to 2014) as it is implicitly implied in the motion.
Challenging Definitions (1/2)
Should the Proposition team define the motion unreasonably, there are a couple of options that the Opposition team can
choose to go with:

Option 1 Accept the unreasonable definition, and debate with the Proposition’s definition.

The Opposition team may argue that the definition is unreasonable, but still accept the definition as the
context of the debate and continue to debate within that definition.

Option 2 Broaden the debate back to the words in the motion based on the level of abstraction or specificity or the
general meanings.
Challenging Definitions (2/2)
Option 3 Challenge the definition. This means that the Opposition team must explicitly argue that the definition is
unreasonable and present an alternative and reasonable definition.

However, if the Opposition team chooses to go with this route, they are encouraged to still engage with the
definition provided by the Proposition team and argue why even under their own definition, it is still not
worth defending. This is called even-if analyses.

A couple of notes for definitional challenge:

● There is no obligation to challenge unreasonable definitions. If teams deem that it is strategic to
proceed with an unreasonable or faulty definition, they may do so.
● Assessments of definition(s) and definitional challenges are marked under strategy. If the
Opposition’s challenge is successful, this will impact Proposition’s strategy score. Conversely, if the
Opposition’s challenge is unsuccessful, this will impact the Opposition's strategy score.
● Debates are not automatically won or lost by definitional challenges. Definitions merely provide a
framework for analysis of the round.

IMPORTANT: Option 1 and 2 can be done by any of the Opposition speakers; Option 3 MUST BE DONE ONLY by
the First Opposition speaker.
Judging in the
WSDC Format
The “Model” Judge (1/3)
The “model judge”, also known as “Ordinary Intelligent Voter”, who are trusted to judge debates in the WSDC format and to
provide quality adjudication or reasoning should demonstrate the following characteristics:

Impartial This means that they do not judge teams they have a personal bond with (e.g. regions of affiliation, teams
they have coached or helped with spars, etc.)

Unbiased This means that they have no prior idea who is going to win the debate. They set aside their personal
opinion about the motion or specific arguments. They also do not expect teams to argue their preferred
arguments or discount arguments they do not like. They quite literally judge the debate that happened
before them.
The “Model” Judge (2/3)
Open-minded and This means that they are willing to be convinced by either side and would credit teams and speakers who
concerned to decide provide the most compelling and persuasive case for or against a certain motion.
how to vote

Observant and This means that they listen carefully to what debaters say. They do not construct ideas that have not been
diligent explained well. They look for substantiation and evidence equally from both teams. They track arguments,
responses, and POIs – and are able to fairly and accurately summarise the debate before evaluating it.

Possessing general This means that they take on the role of an average, intelligent listener and are aware of current affairs and
knowledge basic facts without letting specialist knowledge interfere with the debate.
The “Model” Judge (3/3)
Expert on the rules This means that they know WSDC debating rules well and understand the words in the motion and the roles
of teams/speakers.

Accountable and This means that they can justify their decision based on a sound understanding of issues in the debate and
constructive the criteria for judging; and give debaters constructive and concrete feedback after the result of the debate
is announced.
NOT a “Model” Judge (1/2)
To be extremely clear, the “model judge” SHOULD NOT:

Use extremely For example, they should never say: “The proposition claimed that 1 million electric cars were produced in
specific knowledge on the UK last year, and it wasn’t attacked by the opposition, but since this is my field of expertise I know that
a certain topic the correct number is 39,000 which is why the argument falls.”

The judge should only judge as it happened.

Assess the content in For example, they should never say: “I penalised you because you didn’t bring up an argument about the
the debate based on economy, even though I think that is really relevant in the debate.”
the arguments a team
could have made Judges cannot penalise teams for not bringing certain arguments. They can, however, give this as explicit
feedback for teams to improve. Not as a legitimisation of the call for the given debate.
NOT a “Model” Judge (2/2)
Assess the content For example, they should never say: “You explained your arguments about violence pretty well, but I thought
based on refutation of 3 different ways to rebut it which is why I penalised you on content.
the judge is able to
think of against an The example above implies that the judge is giving less credits to the Proposition team based on the
argument responses that the judge made themselves and not what the Opposition actually said; which is why this
should not be done. Judges should only take into account what has been said and not what could have
been said in the debate.

Fill in the gaps in For example, they should never say: “You tried to explain why this policy harms minorities, and even though
analysis or rebuttal you didn’t give the right reasons, I do agree with you that it’s an important argument because of reason X, Y
that a team has and Z. This is why I awarded you with an uptick mark on content.”
themselves
Again, judges should only take into account what has been said, not what could have been said in the
debate. They can only give such advice during feedback for improvement purposes, if teams want to know
how to make their argument(s) stronger, not as a justification of awarding marks.
Evaluating the Debate
Judges should determine which team did the best to persuade them, by reasoned argument, within the constraints
set by the rules of WSDC, that the motion ought to be adopted or rejected.

The judges do so as the ordinary intelligent voter, and their assessments are always holistic and comparative.
Because the WSDC format has a specific marking system, judges are encouraged to understand their functions in
the debate.
Evaluating Analysis
Judges should fairly evaluate analyses provided by speakers in the debate. A good analysis should largely
demonstrate the following qualities:

● Rigorous logic, i.e. clear linkback with conclusion cleanly derived from assumptions
● Goes beyond assertions, i.e. outcomes are not just claimed as harms and benefits without analysis to back
up why that outcome is likely
● Relevance, i.e. what teams explain and decide on are relevant to the debate
● Relative importance, i.e. that the argument is reasonable explained to be important in the debate
● Tracking evolution, i.e. there are clear follow-ups to other teams’ materials (e.g. responses to arguments, or
responses to responses made by the other team, new illustrations or examples)
Evaluating Second Speakers
● In some instances, Second Speakers may choose to make an entirely new, independent argument. Some may choose
to provide an “extension”, e.g. new framing, advanced stakeholder analysis, etc.

○ We believe that no approach, in and of itself, is better than the other. What is important to note is that the
Second Speaker should not be a mere repetition of the First Speaker.

○ If they add a new argument that reinforces existing, undefeated premises, then it may be new but not
necessarily strategic. Similarly, if they add new defences to a premise that was taken out, then it may not be
new, but might be strategic.

● Second Speakers should introduce new materials in the form of new examples, new stakeholder analyses, additional
logical links, new impacts or conclusions, new framings, etc.; even if it is not a new argument per se.

○ Should they decide to forward a new argument, then that argument should be given enough time to be
properly and fully analysed (i.e. it should not be a “one-liner”).
Evaluating Third Speakers
● Third Speakers in the WSDC format may include a small part of their team’s substantive case, only if it is flagged in
the case division announced by the First Speaker (e.g. “I will talk about X, my Second Speaker will talk about Y, and
my Third Speaker will talk about Z”). However, they are not allowed to include new arguments in their case.
● The role of the 3rd speaker is to respond to the other team’s case. “Responding” is a broad term covering direct
rebuttal, weighing of arguments, new examples, etc.
● “Newness” in a third speech is not sufficient justification to discredit material at the Third Speaker’s speech.
Newness is not permissible if third speakers introduce an independent and new concept or argument in the debate.
● It is important to note that even if a material is not new, it could still be late. For example, this looks like the First
Proposition Speaker bringing up a piece of substantive analysis, but it is only engaged with by the Third Proposition
Speaker, who defeats the material.
○ While this material may not be new, the engagement is late since there were at least two prior speeches
that could have responded. In this case, “successful” late engagements could be marked in the following
ways: (1) upwards pressure on content and (2) downward pressure on strategy due to poor prioritisation
across the team.
Evaluating Reply Speakers
● As the WSDC rule asserts, the Reply Speaker may either be the First or Second Speaker of the team, but not the Third.

● Neither Reply speaker may introduce a new part of the team’s case or a new argument. New weighing of
arguments, framing, contextual observations, or examples can all serve this function and are permitted and credited in
replies.

○ However, these need to be clearly derivative of the existing events in the debate.
Evaluating POIs
● Judges should always track who offered POIs, how many POIs were accepted, the content of POIs, and the
responses to POIs.

○ This is why the POI Adjustment columns exist and are used in the WSDC format to reflect the impact of POIs in
the round.

● Judges may grant or take away up to 2 points per speech in the POI Adjustment column.

○ However, please note that judges cannot add two points where a speech is already excellent, and judges
cannot subtract points where the speech is already below average.
Identifying “Issues”
● Judges must identify issues or clashes that were discussed in the debate in order to judge in a systematic manner.
Issues are often questions that help judges decide whether a particular motion should pass.
● Judges should constantly track the debate to check the clashes or issues that teams discussed the most and therefore
identify the ones that are more crucial to winning the debate than others.
● There are two ways that judges can identify main issues in a debate:
● Pointed out by teams → this means that the speakers (typically the Third Speaker) would group their
responses under certain issues or clashes. They may be the actual issues in the debate that the judges could
use to decide which team wins the issue.
● Self-identified → typically occurs when teams did not come up with clashes/issues, and therefore the judges
have to come up with the issues based on the tracked and evaluated arguments and engagements. It is
important to identify issues as they emerged in the debate.
Weighing “Issues” (1/2)
After identifying the issues in the debate, judges need to decide the importance of each issue in comparison with the others.
This helps decide which issue is most crucial for a team in order to win the debate. In deciding the “ranking” of issues, judges
can use the following sequence:

● What teams explicitly agreed on as the most important

● If the above is not clear, then move to what teams implicitly agreed on as important
● If the above is still not clear, then move to the reasons given by teams on why a particular issue matters more than
other issues (e.g. weighing done by speakers)
● If everything else is not clear and/or not present, this is the only instance where judges can enter the debate to
decide the ranking of issues. However, it is important to note that this must not be done under personal reasoning,
but rather as the ordinary intelligent voter as described before.
Weighing “Issues” (2/2)
● Finally, judges should evaluate who wins the issue(s), and subsequently, the debate. This can be done by comparing
the contribution of the two teams on a given issue, which include their respective arguments and rebuttals. Judges
then decide which team ultimately won the particular issue.
● As an additional note, “practical” issues should not be automatically considered as more important than “principle”
issues.
○ We have seen instances where judges would be more persuaded by analyses that have practical impacts (e.g.
“The Opposition Team won in this clash because they were able to come up with X, Y and Z practical impacts
that are more important than the Proposition Team’s principled and conceptual arguments”, etc.).
○ This is not how issues should be judged because “practical” arguments, in and of itself, are not automatically
better than their “principle” counterparts.
○ However, in an instance where a team is able to structurally prove why the practical impacts are more
important than the “principle” arguments their opponent brought up, judges should definitely take that as a
consideration.
The Conferral Judging Process
Starting from NSDC 2023, we will introduce conferral judging. The aim of a conferral judging is not necessarily to convince the
other judges that one's call is the most correct based on the debate; but rather to help the panel of judges evaluate the debate
more comprehensively and holistically. The conferral process ideally should look like the following:
The Conferral Judging Process
1. Arriving at a Preliminary Verdict
Judges are expected to have their thought processes going as the debate goes, which means it should be very likely for all
judges to at least already have their preliminary verdict by the time the Proposition Reply finishes their speech.
1. Track the debate closely through good notes and identify issues as they emerge in the debate.
2. Evaluate who won the identified issues by: (a) comparing contributions of the two teams on a given issue (which
include their arguments and rebuttals) and check how they interact with each other, and (b) decide which team
ultimately won the particular issue.
3. Decide the importance of each of the issues to the debate. In many debates, it is possible that one team has clearly
resolved all the issues in a way that is favourable to their side. However, in some debates that are particularly close,
different teams may have won different issues. Please refer to this section for more explanation.
4. Determine the winner. The team that wins a majority of the important issues in the round wins the debate. Please note
that winners are not determined by the aggregate of individual speaker scores, but rather by the issues they won.
Scores then reflect the quality of the debate and speakers.
The Conferral Judging Process
2. Engage in Conferral and Arrive at Final Decision (Part 1)
We suggest judges use the opportunity to clarify any questions they may have about the debate. They may include:
1. Clarifications on the WSDC rules, examples include:
a. Should the judges credit the materials that were only present in a Third Speaker’s speech?
b. Was the Second Opposition Speaker’s definitional challenge fair and therefore should be credited?
2. Clarifications on more subjective elements of the round, such as:
a. Questions attempting to ascertain or clarify “what happened”, which includes double-checking the tracking
and notes, confirming that the point is understood correctly, etc.
b. Questions attempting to ascertain “how to evaluate”. In particularly close debates, these may attempt to
understand how to compare contributions, or weigh up engagement
The Conferral Judging Process
2. Engage in Conferral and Arrive at Final Decision (Part 2)
● Judges then need to participate in identifying and tracking issues as a panel.
○ Chairs should facilitate the discussion to arrive at the crucial issues within the round and an understanding of
the quality and closeness of the round through questions like: “I thought there were X important
questions/issues in the round. Does anyone have additions to these?”, or “How close was this round? Did you
think it was average, above average, or below average overall?”.
○ Panels will contribute to the discussion by articulating how their view of a clash each, which may differ based
on whether a split exists or not. Where a split exists, the judge splitting will briefly go through their perspective
across clashes.
● Judges then reevaluate their decision based on the new information and perspective they receive by taking into
account the discussion, rechecking their notes, and making their final decision. Panels should inform the Chair in the
room for this final decision before submitting their ballots.
The Conferral Judging Process
3. Filling the Ballots
● This is where scores and marking categories (Content, Style, Strategy) become most relevant. Rather than rigidly
seeing them as discrete elements, these are three mutually reinforcing areas that help a judge score a particular
speaker within a debate.

● Judges submit their ballots independently. In an instance where one of the judges in the panel changes their call,
they should inform the chair prior to filling in their ballot.

● The speaker scores are a mathematical expression of the judges’ decision and their view of the debate/speaker
quality and not the other way around. Scores have to reflect the judges’ win or loss decision. This means that
low-point wins are not allowed, where one team scores higher than another, but loses the issues in the debate.

● At the same time, since the scores are also an expression of the judges’ perspective on quality, they can award the
highest speaker score to someone on the losing team to reflect the quality of their speech should it stand out.
The Conferral Judging Process
3. Preparation for Oral Adjudication (OA)
● Only one member of the panel will deliver an OA reflecting opinions from all the judges.

○ In most cases, the Chair judge will deliver the OA to the teams.

○ Where there is a split with the Chair in the minority, the Chair may request a member of the majority to deliver
the OA.

● In this process, the judge delivering the OA should make sure their OA factor in dissenting opinions, especially
after the conferral process, which shapes up the win or loss.

○ In cases of split, Chairs should request the dissenting judge to provide them the key points of divergence and
later frame the OA to cover those points.
The Conferral Judging Process
3. The Oral Adjudication (OA) (Part 1)

In delivering the OA, the judges doing so should do the following:

● Announce the decision first.

● Keep the OA within 10 minutes and do not reveal speaker scores.

● In these 10 minutes, walk teams through the tracking of the debate and its interactions, rather than giving them lists of
what arguments they made. This looks like:

a. Why are specific issues important in the context of this particular debate?

b. Are these issues equally important, or are some more important than others? Why?

c. Which teams won on specific issues and why?

The Conferral Judging Process
3. The Oral Adjudication (OA) (Part 2)

● Judges should be comparative:

a. What points (e.g. points of argumentation, points of style or strategy) were more persuasive on the winning
side,

b. Explanation of strengths and weaknesses of teams has to always be comparative

● Judges must also be specific. Do not stop at generic phrases like "The Proposition team provided more analysis”, or
"the arguments from Team Opposition were more persuasive”, etc. Instead, give specific points of reference where
that was observable.
The Conferral Judging Process
3. The Oral Adjudication (OA) (Part 3)

● Judges should try to spend an equal amount of time on both teams, balancing positive and constructive.

● Judges must choose their language carefully, which means they should not make offensive comments, not make fun
of speakers, and must be respectful at all times.

● When explaining the decision, judges ought to stick to what happened in the round; as suggestions for improvement
can be provided later.
Providing Constructive Feedback
● At the end of the Oral Adjudication, judges and teams should have a “buffer time” that they can use for a constructive
feedback session.
○ In this process, judges take up the role as an “educator” and not just a “model judge”.
○ This means that, if asked, judges may provide suggestions for how they would have approached the motion
or specific arguments or responses they might have run.
● Judges may also suggest to teams how to prioritise their material, provide more in-depth feedback per speaker (e.g.
what they did well, what they can do better in the following rounds, etc).
○ Judges should also adjust their feedback to the speaker (e.g. do not overload seemingly novice speakers with
complex comments and feedback).
Important Notes on Conferral Judging (1/2)
Understanding the conferral judging in the WSDC format is a relatively new procedure, here are the following
guidelines that the Adjudication Core would suggest:

● Enter the discussion with openness. Judges should avoid being obstinate or unwilling to listen to what
other judges are saying. There is no shame in changing the initial decision if judges feel that additional
information or perspective changes the way they view the debate.
● Be specific in making questions. As much as is possible, any clarifications should be targeted and specific,
rather than open ended. Judges are expected to avoid asking ‘What did X say in their second argument?’,
and instead play back their understanding of the second argument and ask for additions if there are any.
● Use language that makes space for, and facilitates discussion. Judges should phrase sentences that
indicate that they are sharing opinions, rather than sharing objective fact. Avoid statements such as: “This
clash clearly went to X”, or “This is such an obvious win to Y”.
Important Notes on Conferral Judging (2/2)
● Spend more time on (i.e. prioritise) contentious, important areas. Due to time constraints, all participants
in the conferral process are expected to spend a majority of the discussion on clear and specific areas that
are more difficult to evaluate and matter more to the overall decision of the debate, rather than areas that
the judges broadly agree on, or may have contention, but do not contribute as much to deciding the
round’s winner.
● Avoid arguments/heated back and forths. Judges should be constantly aware that they are in a ‘conferral’
rather than a ‘consensus’ discussion. Receiving information to enhance each other’s decision making
process is more important than the end state of the decision itself.
The Marking
Range in the
WSDC Format
Scoring Criteria
Content, Style and Strategy are the criteria used to review the performance of each team and assess scores to
each speaker. Rather than rigidly seeing them as discrete elements when determining speaker scores/which team
won, these three areas should help a judge understand what team did a best job during the debate overall, i.e.
which team won the debate.

● Content (40%) → WHAT is said in the debate

● Style (40%) → HOW are the materials delivered in the debate
● Strategy (20%) → WHY is something said in the debate
Scoring Scale (for substantive speeches)
Qualitative
Content (40%) Style (40%) Strategy (20%) Total (100%)
Description

Excellent 32 32 16 80

Extremely Good 31 31 15-16 76-79

Very Good 30 30 15 74-75

Good 29 29 14-15 71-73

Average 28 28 14 70

Improvement
27 27 13-14 67-69
Needed

Poor 26 26 13 65-66

Very Poor 25 25 12-13 61-64

Extremely Poor 24 24 12 60
Scoring Scale (for reply speeches)
Qualitative
Content (40%) Style (40%) Strategy (20%) Total (100%)
Description

Exceptional 16 16 8 40

Good to Extremely
15 15 7.5 36-39
Good

Average 14 14 7 35

Very Poor to
Improvement 13 13 6.5 31-34
Needed

Extremely Poor 12 12 6 30
Important Notes on Scoring
Please note that:

● Judges are expected to fill in scores for each category

● Half marks (0.5) are the lowest fraction allowed
● Reply speeches are marked out of 50% of substantive speeches
● You should not convert scores from other formats to help you determine the final overall speaker
scores.
Description on Substantive Speeches Scoring Range (1/3)

Mark Description

● Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given in a schools competition.
● It is incredibly difficult to think up satisfactory responses to any of the arguments
80
made.
● Flawless and compelling arguments, made with outstanding delivery.

● Arguments are all relevant and well-illustrated, and address the core issues in the
debate, with thorough explanations, no logical gaps, and credible examples, making
77-79 them hard to attack.
● Easy to follow throughout. The style serves to make the speech’s content more
engaging.

● Arguments are relevant and engage with the most important issues. Arguments
have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps.
● Occasionally, the speaker provides more sophisticated and nuanced analysis,
73-76
making their arguments hard to attack.
● Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the
speech more engaging and persuasive.
Description on Substantive Speeches Scoring Range (2/3)
Mark Description

● Arguments are all relevant, and address the core issues in the debate.
● All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and most have
credible evidence. Some points raised may have minor logical gaps or deficits in
71-72
explanation.
● Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the
speech more engaging and persuasive.

● No major shortfalls, nor any strong moments.

● Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, although may fail to address one or
more core issues sufficiently.
70 ● All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and some
examples, but are simplistic and easy to attack.
● Easy to follow throughout which makes the speech understandable, though style
does not necessarily serve to make the speech more persuasive.

● Most of the points made are relevant to the debate.

● All arguments / rebuttals have some explanation, but it still has logical and analytical
67-69
gaps in important parts of the argument and lacks evidence.
● Mostly easy to follow, but some sections may still be hard to understand.
Description on Substantive Speeches Scoring Range (3/3)

Mark Description

● Some of the points made are relevant to the debate.

● Arguments / rebuttals are made with some explanation and analysis, but with
64-66
significant logical gaps in the explanation.
● Sometimes the speech is difficult to follow.

● A few marginally relevant claims.

61-63 ● No analysis provided in the claims, which are mainly lines without explanation.
● Parts of the speech are clear, but significant parts are still hard to follow.

● Content is not relevant to the motion and what the team needs to prove.
60 ● All points made are claims, with no analysis, and are confusing.
● The speech is hard to follow throughout, so it is hard to give it any credit.
Description on Reply Speeches Scoring Range

Mark Description

Flawless analysis of the debate that just occurred. Speaker was able to accurately
40 identify turning points in the debate (including the strongest arguments and rebuttal of
their opponents) and why their side wins on balance.

Almost perfect overview of the debate. Particular interactions from the debate were
36-39
analysed and used as evidence for awarding the win to the speaker’s team.

Speaker identified the major points of clash between two teams and was able to provide
35
some basic justification for awarding the win to the speaker's team.

Instead of actually identifying or analysing points of clash, speakers mostly just retold the
31-34
debate as it happened or attempted to keep arguing for their side.

The speaker did not describe the debate as it happened. They misunderstood or
30
misrepresented central arguments and responses.
POI Adjustment Column
In the WSDC format, and subsequently NSDC, judges will see the “POI adjustment column” for each speaker in
their ballots. Below are the guidelines to utilise the column:

1. Track POIs asked, and reward speakers who ask good POis in the POI column.
a. Everything that happens within the 8 minutes of a speech is marked within the 3 categories of
Style, Content and Strategy. Therefore, answers to POIs will be factored into one of these three
categories.
b. Content that happens outside the speaker holding the floor’s speech is marked within the POI
adjustment column (if necessary).
c. Judges grant or take away up to 2 further points.
2. POI adjustments can only punish or reward speakers based on whether they are already highly above
average or very below average respectively. Judges cannot add two points where a speech is already
excellent, and they cannot subtract to points where the speech is already below average.
Appendix: Judge Feedback
Note on Feedback

● Teams must submit their feedback on their chairs as soon as the debate ends.
● Chairs must submit feedback on their panels or trainees as soon as the debate ends.

Feedback is important to gauge the quality of the judges and their adjudication based on the debate that they
judge. This is crucial to help the Adjudication Core to determine not only the breaking judges, but how far they
should judge in the tournament.

Please make sure feedback is submitted right after the debate ends, before the next debate starts. Teams should
not submit feedback on chairs in silent rounds (this includes the elimination rounds).
Appendix: Judge Feedback Scale

Score Description

Trainee. Should not receive a vote, largely due to minimal capacity to weigh ideas
1
effectively, unsure or completely inaccurate about the clashes of the debate.

Trainee. Should not receive a vote. They may have some useful contributions to
2
discussions but do not arrive at an accurate reading of the debate.

Solid trainee. They could receive a vote due to decent tracking. However, they may
3 struggle to arrive at an accurate reading or over rely on intuition rather than clear and
logical metrics.
Appendix: Judge Feedback Scale

Score Description

Should panel. They can identify relevant arguments and weigh them, but may struggle
4
with close clashes or credit ideas imperfectly. May lack clarity in some clash discussions.

Strong panel. They will reach an accurate reading of the debate and be able to express
5
this to teams. May occasionally miss metrics or struggle to weigh close clashes.

Should chair. They can describe and weigh all relevant arguments logically and
6 appropriately. Potentially some material credited imperfectly, or some moments with less
clarity.
Appendix: Judge Feedback Scale
Score Description

Should chair and could be considered for the breaks. They can generally clearly explain
7
an appropriate reading of the debate, and reach the right conclusions on key clashes.

Should definitely break. They can judge clearly and accurately, and have apt commentary
8
on both sides' cases.

Highly competent chair. They can provide highly accurate and clearly weighed
9
adjudication even on close clashes, effective feedback.

Should chair the Grand Final. They demonstrate a masterclass in WSDC judging with the
10 highest quality of adjudication through an accurate and nuanced understanding of
engagement in the debate.
Thank you!

Questions?