Firstly, thanks to everybody who came down and spent their Friday evening with us last week,  judging the various debates. Although the round went quite well, the debates ended very late because some of the rooms started late, and (more commonly) because the second and third debates were delayed due to extensive debriefs by the adjudicators. As an adjudicator myself, I understand the desire for us to be as thorough as possible with both teams, so that they learn from their mistakes (and work on their strengths). This unfortunately causes the young student volunteers from the host schools have to stay back very late to re-arrange and clean up the classrooms. Thus, we would like to reiterate a few points (the ones in red) for all adjudicators, to help us keep things running on time for the next round.

1. FILLING IN THE SCORE SHEET

• Your score must be within the standard grid (provided) of 60-80. The average speaker score for this competition is 70. Adjudicators are reminded to be discerning and have strong justifications when awarding speaker scores above 75 or below 65.
• A speaker who reads extensively from a prepared speech with minimal eye contact usually scores below average on style, unless the speech managed to nevertheless be engaging.
• Track your debate on a separate sheet, and change your draft speaker scores on that sheet. Only write your final scores and summarised comments (in bullet points) on the score sheet.
• All 3 debates on the day are the same Round.
• Your comments should be worded diplomatically. Try and have a balance of positive comments and constructive criticism.
• Draws are not allowed.
• Check your addition to make sure the numbers are correct, and that the team you felt won the debate does indeed have the higher score.

2. DISCUSSING THE VERDICT

• Give your score sheet to the chairman before you begin the discussion. Shadow judges should also hand in their score sheets before joining the discussion.
• If you intend to discuss the verdict in the room, make sure all judges have completed their score sheets before you begin the discussion.
• You should take no longer than 5 minutes for the discussion to finalise the key points for the oral adjudication. This discussion is for you to share your perspectives with the chief judge on what to highlight during the oral adjudication and to the teams during debrief, not to argue about which team won.
• The judging panel must also determine the Best Speaker for the debate. This will be the speaker that most judges (not including the shadows) scored the highest; if there is a tie, the best speaker can be chosen by consensus from the judges. If there is still no decision emerging, the chief judge will decide the best speaker.

3. ORAL ADJUDICATION AND FEEDBACK TO TEAMS

• Irrespective of whether the Chief Judge is in the majority or dissents, the Chief Judge will deliver the oral adjudication. Another judge will only deliver the oral adjudication if the Chief feels strongly that another judge would be better suited for this role,
• The Oral Adj should cover all elements of the debate, including style, content, and strategy. The speech should be a balanced commentary of positive comments and constructively-worded criticism, on both teams. Be encouraging, polite and professional in your delivery.
• The speech should last less than 5 minutes.
• Announce the best speaker before you announce the winning team.
• All judges may give additional feedback to the teams. Be concise, and do not delay the start of the next debate because of your feedback to the teams. Some helpful tips: (1) debrief the teams outside the classroom so that the next round’s teams can get set up in the room; (2) please do not debrief each speaker point-by-point – provide just one or two key lessons for each speaker at most.

4. OTHER MATTERS

• The Chief Judge should advise the convenors (from DA(S)) on the performance of their shadow judges. If there are concerns about any of the judges, feedback should be directed to convenors, not teams.
• If there are administrative or logistical problems during the debate, the Chief Judge should act decisively and inform the convenors when possible. The Chief Judge is responsible for the smooth progress of the debate.

Once again, thanks to all the adjudicators who make SSDC possible every year. We are always open to suggestions and ideas on how to streamline the competition to help end a little bit earlier (so we can all go out and enjoy our Friday evening!) so please feel free to comment below or email us directly if you have any thoughts.  See you at the next round on Mar 5th!

Judigng a debate well is not an easy skill to learn, and requires you to work as hard than the students during the debate. You must be able to provide a substantiated and well-founded Reason For your Decision (RFD) to explain to the students who won and why.

1. Read the Adjudication Guides online to understand the expectations of an adjudicator, especially the official WSDC guide. Understand the rules of debate for the format of your upcoming competition clearly, so that you have no doubts about what the technicalities of the debate are.

2. Register yourself for an adjudicator training sessions held by DA(S) and Julia Gabriel’s. Once you have been trained, practise, practise, practise. If you wish to be a shadow judge (that is, to understudy one of the judges during a competition), email the competition convener or the DA(S) and we will arrange for it.

Judging a Debate

Once the debate starts, you will have to work as hard as the debaters. Judging a debate requires you to:

1. Listen carefully. You should write down the key points (such as the definitions, case divisions, key arguments and examples, etc) of each speaker. Note down what they are saying, and analyse whether it is logical, well substantiated, and relevant to the topic. Also listen for what is not being said (did they miss any key definitions? Did they rebut all the major points?) and what is being asserted without any reason or evidence. Note down the points of information – who is offering them, how many were accepted by the speaker, how were they addressed, etc. There are many different ways to track a debate – here is one sample. You may choose to track the debate in a different way, and that is fine as long as you have sufficient information to make a good decision about how the debate went.

2. Avoid joining the debate yourself. This is always a tough challenge for judges. You should be impartial and objective, and look at each point fairly without any personal bias for or against the topic. You should not reject or oppose any argument raised by a debater just because you disagree with it – you can only judge arguments that have been raised by the speakers on the floor, not by your own “debater instinct”. If a bad argument is raised but is not rebutted by an opposition team, you should not “fill in the rebuttal” on behalf of the opposition team. A point that is raised (assuming it is not ridiculously fallacious) is always valid unless the other team rebuts it.

3. Score the debate objectively based on the “competition average”. If you are judging at a secondary school debate competition, the average score (usually “70″ for WSDC format debates) will be moderated to that competition. If you are judging at a JC or international competition, obviously you would expect a higher standard of average in order to get a “70″ score. You will only learn what the competition average “looks like” after shadow judging many debates and through experience. Refer to the competition rulebook to understand in more detail what the expectations are for each score range.

Filling in the Score Sheet

The DA(S) is encouraging all competitions to use an improved variant of the WSDC score sheet.

View the new score sheet (sample) here

View the the guide on how to fill it up here.

Delivering Your Verdict

As an adjudicator, you will usually have three opportunities to provide feedback and comments for a debate:

1. Written feedback on the ballot
2. Oral adjudication summary
3. Briefing for individual teams

Of these, the oral adjudication summary places extra demands on the adjudicator in that he or she will be required to address the audience. This section will seek to provide some pointers on how to deliver a good oral adjudication summary, keeping in mind that all debates are different and a model answer on oral summaries cannot be given.
The purpose of the oral adjudication summary is as follows:

1. Explain the rationale behind the decision made by the judges;
2. Highlight the key arguments, examples and other elements that contributed to the decision; and
3. Offer suggestions on other elements that should have been introduced to make the debate a better one.

The following steps can be taken during the various stages of the debate to assist in the delivery of the oral adjudication summary.
Preparation during the debate

1. Be ready to step up. When you are judging, you must be prepared to provide an oral adjudication summary, even if you are not the chair. Some chairs would prefer not to deliver the summary if he or she is in the minority and may delegate this task to you. At the same time, you may still be required to give the summary as a chair even if you are in the minority if those in the majority prefer not to do so.
2. Prepare your notes early. You can start jotting down key factors that should be raised in the oral summary, even during the match. This would mean that you are unlikely to forget key points that were raised earlier in the match. In the same vein, this would make the deliberations with the panel quicker. When preparing your notes, you can also start to categorise your points so that they would already be in your preferred order when you deliver the summary.

Deliberations after the debate

1. Take on board separate views. When judging in a panel, it is important to include the views of all the adjudicators. On some contentious areas, it would important to highlight both the majority and the dissenting views. If you already have the preferred order of points for adjudication, it would be easy to slot the additional points into your delivery.

Delivery of the Oral Summary

1. Keep in the audience in mind. When delivering the oral adjudication summary, keep in mind that this would be the only opportunity to address the public but that there is another chance to engage the debaters later. Stick to the key issues without getting into intricate details that would be best brought up later when talking with the teams.
2. Keep it concise. It is important to stick to the key issues and not ramble on. There should be the same time discipline that is expected in the speakers. Before delivering the speech, estimate how long it would take to deliver the summary and attempt to stick to that time limit.
3. Be precise. Depending on the format of the debate and the competition, you may be required to give the verdict either before or after the oral adjudication summary.  There is a tendency to keep the comments vague so that the verdict would come as a surprise. Try to avoid vague comments that do not provide learning points for the audience and the teams. If a good oral adjudication is delivered, the audience would be able to see what the key considerations for the decision were and the verdict will not be a surprise.

Experienced judges, what do you think? Are there other important things that new judges should know? New judges, do you have any questions that are unanswered? Ask us in the comment form below!

* Your score must be within the standard grid (provided) of 60-80.. The average speaker score for this competition is 70. Adjudicators are reminded to be discerning and have strong justifications when awarding speaker scores above 75 or below 65.
* A speaker who reads extensively from a prepared speech with minimal eye contact usually score below average on style, unless the speech managed to nevertheless be engaging.
* Track your debate on a separate sheet, and change your draft speaker scores on that sheet. Only write your final scores and summarised comments (in bullet points) on the score sheet.
* All 3 debates on the same day are considered the same Round.
* Your comments should be worded diplomatically. Try and have a balance of positive comments and constructive criticism.
* Draws are not allowed.
* Check your addition to make sure the numbers are correct, and that the team you felt won the debate does indeed have the higher score.

2. DISCUSSING THE VERDICT

* Give your score sheet to the chairman before you begin the discussion. Shadow judges should also hand in their score sheets before joining the discussion.
* If you intend to discuss the verdict in the room, make sure all judges have completed their score sheets before you begin the discussion.
* You should take no longer than 5 minutes for the discussion to finalise the key points for the oral adjudication. This discussion is for you to share your perspectives with the chief judge on what to highlight during the oral adjudication and to the teams during debrief, not to argue about which team won.
* The judging panel must also determine the Best Speaker for the debate. This will be the speaker that most judges (not including the shadows) scored the highest; if there is a tie, the best speaker can be chosen by consensus from the judges. If there is still no decision emerging, the chief judge will decide the best speaker.

3. ORAL ADJUDICATION AND FEEDBACK TO TEAMS

* Irrespective of whether the Chief Judge is in the majority or dissents, the Chief Judge will deliver the oral adjudication. Another judge will only deliver the oral adjudication if the Chief feels strongly that another judge would be better suited for this role,
* The Oral Adj should cover all elements of the debate, including style, content, and strategy. The speech should be a balanced commentary of positive comments and constructively-worded criticism, on both teams. Be encouraging, polite and professional in your delivery.
* The speech should last less than 5 minutes.
* Announce the best speaker before you announce the winning team.
* All judges may give additional feedback to the teams. Be concise, and do not delay the start of the next debate because of your feedback to the teams.

4. OTHER MATTERS

* The Chief Judge should advise the convenors (from DA(S)) on the performance of their shadow judges. If there are concerns about any of the judges, feedback should be directed to convenors, not teams.
* If there are administrative or logistical problems during the debate, the Chief Judge should act decisively and inform the convenors when possible. The Chief Judge is responsible for the smooth progress of the debate.

I’ve taken the liberty of crafting a deliberately provocative document that all judges should think about.  Feel free to add to it, disagree and share your experiences if any of the comments strike a chord!

Jon Pflug

PS:  Pls credit the author and the Debate Association when copying the text.

1) Thou Shalt Not undermine your own credibility.

When a debate is close, it is testament to the quality of both teams.  Never say that it was so close that you didn’t know who to give it to.  You disrespect both teams by giving them the impression that their debate was decided on the flip of a coin.

Note: you also disrespect teams when you fall asleep during the debate.  Don’t do this.  Please.

2) Thou Shalt Not ramble on for too long during the adjudication speech.

Teams just want to know the result.  Never grandstand – this is not YOUR moment.  Give a very brief discussion focusing on the one issue that made a difference in the judges’ minds.  Longer comments should be saved for the post-result discussion.

3) Thou Shalt Not balk from crediting style as a decision-tipping factor.

Debate is about persuasion, and persuasion is about delivery as much as it is about finding the right message.  Style and content carry equal percentages in the score sheet.  What that means is that stylistic elements are as worthy of winning debates as content.  You complain that debates are boring?  They’re boring ‘cos you don’t reward debaters for being interesting.

4) Thou Shalt Not disregard rebuttals for being “late”.

Too often, judges disregard arguments raised in the third speaker as being “late”.  This is absurd – why have a third speaker speech, if the third speaker cannot raise new rebuttals?

The more accurate criticism is about “lag time”.  It is important to recognize that this is not a sin in itself.  It is only a major problem when an important argument cannot be comprehensively dealt with by a later speaker, because the speaker with the first chance to reply to the point did not address it.

Sometimes, a speaker provides a “late” rebuttal that comprehensively demolishes the argument it targets. No matter how rare this occurrence, penalizing the speaker (or the speaker’s teammates retroactively) would be entirely counter-intuitive.

5) Thou Shalt Not utter meaningless jargon as a substitute for genuine justification.

Young debaters are genuinely interested in learning.  Judges too often spout jargon and technicalities.  Provide debaters with practical models of excellence in language they understand.

“Where was your baseline” is the same as “state your core idea more clearly”.  “Signpost more” is the same as “use summary sentences like chapter titles; let me know when one chapter concludes and the next one begins”.  You want them to speak English?  You have to stop speaking Debater.

6) Thou Shalt Not condemn.  Instead, recommend.

You might be a judge, but you are not empowered by the Singapore constitution to order caning and hanging.  Never say that both teams were crap, but one had to win anyway.  You want to encourage them with practical advice, not demolish their confidence.

7) Thou Shalt Not respond inappropriately to excessively aggressive disputes against the decision.

You believe you’re right.  That’s no excuse for being rude to an excessively-passionate coach or teacher-in-charge.  State very clearly the grounds of your decision, and refer any complaints to the tournament convener.  Always be gracious and sympathetic; never be self-righteous and indignant.

8 ) Thou Shalt Not have aggressive disputes against decisions other judges take.

No matter how persuasively you might argue for your decision outside the room, here’s an important thing to note: no one can change their scores.  No matter how virulently you resent that no one agreed with you, here’s an important thing to note: you might be wrong.

Do not waste time arguing outside the room during split decisions.  Briefly state some concerns you would like the Chief Adjudicator to raise during his or her speech, and let go.  Do not disparage your fellow adjudicators during the post-result discussions.  You cast more doubt on your own credibility than you do on your peers’.

9) Thou Shalt Not act like you’re too busy to give advice.

There is a legitimate need to stick to the schedule.  But that is no excuse for brushing off requests from teams for post-result discussions of the decision.  Try to manage both the demand for timeliness and the duty to provide advice.  If you’re willing to do so, track the debate in a way that your notes are legible and you can distribute them to teams.  Ah yes, transparency in the decision-making process.  Revolutionary.

10) Thou Shalt Not socialize excessively with the coaches.

Yes, coaches are people too.  Yes, some coaches are truly the most popular and respected people on the circuit (cough).  But you do not burnish your reputation by socializing with them.  You tarnish it with criticisms of prejudice.  It is important to be just, but it is also important to be seen as being just.

By Jonathan Pflug
First published on the Debate Association forum on 14 Feb 07