Adjudication Concepts

www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]

How to Adjudicate

Amit Golder, Victor Finkel + Ray D’Cruz


Your Job:

1. Decide who won the debate + why

2. Convey this to the teams clearly

3. Provide constructive feedback to teams/speakers


Who are you?

• You are the average reasonable debater

• You do not have specialist knowledge

• You do have a good sense of logic

• You may not enter the debate


THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AUTOMATIC WIN OR

LOSS!


Who wins?

• The most persuasive team?

• The highest scoring team?

• The team that wins on ‘matter’ ie the issues in the debate?

Answer: All of the above, to different extents


Matter

• Logic (why?)– Does one thing follow from another?– Can this be reasonably inferred?

• Relevance (why should I care?)– Do the premises support the conclusions?– Does the conclusion support that side of the topic?


Manner

• Vocal– Volume, pace, tone, clarity– Word choice (precision)– Humour?

• Non-Vocal– Gesture, eye contact, stance/body


Method

• Structure

• Priority/timing

• Responsiveness


How to Adj:

• The ‘third speech for the whole debate’ style:– Pick 2-4 themes that encapsulate the debate.– Analyse all the matter in the debate through those

themes– Balance the contributions of each team, across the 6

speakers of the debate, decide which team won– When critically evaluating the matter, refer to

manner and method• Ie. Good method/manner can increase the persuasive effect

of arguments/rebuttal


How to Adj:

• Using the criteria as your guide:– Who wins on matter, manner and method? How much do

they win by? Who wins the debate?

• Other methods (Ravi? Meredith?)

• Note-taking– Format– Analysis – as you go or at the end?– Dangers – don’t finish arguments or keep incomplete

notes


How to Adj:

• Scoring:– As you go: most people note an indication of the

range of speech they saw, ie 76/7. – Be willing to change/re-evaluate preliminary scores.

• Your ‘instincts’– Find ways to justify a debate without resorting to

instinct!– Does not mean instincts about a decision are

incorrect, just means they are not sufficient to justify a result.


How to Oral:

In our opinion, your oral decision should proceed like so:

1. The decision – who won?

2. The reasons for that, as clearly presented as possible!

3. Your feedback to the teams – about the whole debate (whole-of-debate matter, common issues) and each team (cases/tactics)

4. Individual feedback, privately, after the debate, in a sexy way.


Feedback:

• Constructive feedback is feedback that can be used again! ‘You are shit’ is not as constructive as you think!

• The compliment sandwich is useful with younger debaters – acknowledging strengths doesn’t make you a bad adjudicator!

• Give examples from the debate, people like to see that you are paying attention.


Potential Issues:

Definitions:• Only invalid if undebatable, but if not that

reasonable, keep this in mind.• Reward the negative team that tries.

3rd Speakers + New Matter:• Remember the rules, but be reasonable.• Penalise, but almost never totally ignore.


Potential Issues:

Burdens:• Teams can say they have whatever burden they

want, and can claim burdens of other teams – only YOU may decide whether something must be proved/shown to win the debate.

Negative Cases:• Can’t run a ‘pure negation’ – but this is actually

quite rare! Mostly there’s an implicit defence of the status quo.


Potential Issues:

False Facts:• Remember, you are average reasonable

person, can only dismiss false facts if they are obvious, or another team calls them on it.

• Be wary of entering the debate – but you can use your normal logic skillz if the logic of an argument is missing/crappy.

Education

Adjudication Concepts