Judge training
What to look for when judging.
Content
Analysis
Role-Fulfilment
Structure and Timing
Presence
Style
Content
Relevant to the debate/motion.
Engaging with the other speakers.
To the point.
Don't lie too much, or at least make it believable.
Analysis
WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
What?
How?
Why do we care?
Examples, but not personal ones.
To the point.
Logical progression.
Assertions, make sure they make very little and the ones
they make need to be the simplest possible.
Role-fulfilment
1st prop must: Mechanise(1st speaker), Make key points,
rebut (2nd speaker), engage with 1st op's points (2nd
speaker)
1st op must: Attack the mechanism, engage with 1st
prop's points directly, rebut, make key points.
Extension speakers must: Extend the debate as a whole
while adding new information, or re-analyse a point that
has been made in a new way, engage with the first half
of the table.
Summation speakers must: Summarise the key points
on the table giving particular emphasis to the biggest
points of clash, they must add no new information.
TEAM WORK (Flagging, key phrases, etc etc)
Structure
Signposting
Flagging
Mechanism/rebuttal
Make sure the timing for each point is good.
If the speech is too long it's a good indication that they
haven't considered their time.
If the speech is too short it's a good indication that they
haven't analysed their points correctly.
Presence
Making points of information to all members on
the opposite table.
Defending points of information (this requires that they
actually take some)
Check that they do this all the way through the debate
not just after their speech.
Check that they don't give up after their speech, make
sure they have a presence all the way through the
debate.
Style
Confidence
Report with team member.
Engagement with debate as a whole.
Clear and calm.
Eye contact.
Little niggles: Addressing the chair not the room, going
for a walk, scratching yourself
How to actually judge
1st prop
1st opp
2nd prop
2nd opp
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
Point 1
Point 1
Point 1
Point 1
Point 2
Point 2
Point 2
Point 2
Point 3
1st prop
Point 3
1st opp
Point 3
2nd prop
Point 3
2nd opp
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
Point 1
Point 1
Point of clash 1
Point of clash 1
Point 2
Point 2
Point of clash 2
Point of clash 2
Point 3
Point 3
Point of clash 3
Point of clash 3
Worlds Debating Scale
95-100 Plausibly one of the very best debating speeches ever given, flawless and
astonishingly compelling in every regard. It is incredibly difficult to think up
satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made.
90-94 Brilliant arguments dominate the main issues in the round. Arguments are
very well explained, always central to the case being advocated, and demand
extremely sophisticated responses. The speech is very clear and incredibly
compelling. Structure and role fulfilment are executed flawlessly.
85-89 Very good, central arguments engage completely with the most important
issues on the table and are backed up by deep and compelling analysis;
sophisticated responses would be required to refute them. Delivery is clear and
very persuasive. Role fulfilment and structure probably flawless.
80-84 Good arguments address key issues in the round and are both well reasoned
and explained, although may leave avenues open for attack. The speech is clear
in almost its entirety and advocated persuasively. Role is well-fulfilled and
structure is unlikely to be problematic.
Worlds Debating Scale
75-79 Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive.
Occasionally, but not often, the speaker may slip into: deficits in explanation,
simplistic argumentation vulnerable to competent responses or
peripheral/irrelevant arguments. The speaker holds one’s attention, provides
clear structure, and successfully fulfils their basic role on the table.
70-74 Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but
there may be obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or irrelevant
material and simplistic argumentation. The speaker 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 fulfil one’s role on
the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered.
65-69 Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with very rudimentary
explanation. The speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast majority of
the time, but this may be difficult and/or unrewarding. Structure poor; poor
attempt to fulfil role.
60-64 The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes full arguments. Frequently
unclear and confusing; really problematic structure/lack thereof; some
awareness of role.
55-59 The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally formulated as
arguments. Hard to follow, little/no structure; no evident awareness of role.
50-54 Content is almost never relevant, and is both confusing and confused. No
structure or fulfilment of role is, in any meaningful sense, provided.