ADJUDICATION
SEMINAR
JOVED 2016
RODERICK – ROMARIO – NADYA - OMAR
WHAT IS DEBATING?
Debating is a CLASH of opposing ideas.
The aim of teams in a debate is to show why your team’s case is stronger
than the opposing team’s.
Teams seek to win by showing strength of logic, relevance, and in-depth
analysis of arguments, and not merely by stating examples, fact, and
evidences.
Asian Parliamentary Format
Gov. Bench
Opp. Bench
Prime Minister
Leader of Opp.
Deputy PM
Deputy LO
Gov. Whip
Opp. Whip
Gov. Reply
Opp. Reply
Adjudicators
Prime Minister
◦Provide a clear setup of the debate
◦Context
◦Definition
◦Stance
◦Model (if needed)
◦Provide arguments to support motion
Leader of Opposition
◦Clarify definition (if necessary)
◦Show the difference of stance
(negation)
◦Offer responses / rebuttals
◦Provide arguments to oppose the
motion
The Deputies
Deputy Prime Minister & Deputy
Leader of The Opposition
◦Offer responses / rebuttals
◦Provide arguments to develop the team’s
case
The Whips
Government Whip & Opposition
Whip
◦ Summation of the debate
◦ Provide an array of attacks to opposing team’s
case in a holistic manner (Clashes)
◦ Glorify Team’s case (Rebuilding)
◦ No new matter may be delivered!
New Matter
A completely new line of argumentation that has never been discussed
before in the previous speakers.
Not including new examples, precedence, and rebuttals. They are all
allowed! 
Reply Speakers
Provide a biased adjudication of the debate.
Point out the BOPs (Burden of Proofs) that needs to be answered in the
debate.
Cluster arguments and responses into clashes.
Show to the adjudicator how your team managed to win the clashes.
Definitions
Motion should be defined as a whole
Definition may contain:
◦ definition of key lexical units (words/phrases)
◦ parameters
Definition must be reasonable:
◦ have clear and logical link to motion
◦ debatable (a reasonable opposition exists)
Definition shouldn’t be …
– Truistic (not debatable)
•Ex: THBT what goes up must always
come down.
– Tautological / circular (self-proving)
•Ex: THBT extremism is a catalyst for
progress
– Squirreling (no logical link to motion)
•Ex: THW disband the police
Adjudicator
Adjudicator assume an average reasonable person role
A person who has average knowledge of the topic under debate but
expertise knowledge of the rules for competitive debating
◦ Not an expert on issues
◦ Read the news regularly
◦ Understand debating rules
What does an adjudicator do?
 Weigh the arguments and responses presented to decide the winner
 To evaluate and assess the significance and relevance of arguments
presented.
 Assign the speaker score that you think is the most representative
 Provide a verbal adjudication to explain the reason behind your
decision
 Provide a balance adjudication (assess both teams fairly and equally)
 Provide constructive criticism to help the debaters improve
Assessment of the Debate
Use holistic view
Clash
◦ Central issue(s) of the debate: Can be determined through the contribution it gives
to the development of the debate.
It can be indicated through:
◦ Most discussed (Majority of the speaker dicuss the issue in their speeches)
◦ Relevance
◦ Which claims that proven at the end of the debate (rate how an argument is initially brought and how it’s
responded)
Assessment of the Debate
Assessing arguments
◦ The criteria that adjudicators should rate in an argument
◦ The depth of logical analysis
◦ The significance of the argument
◦ The strength and relevance of evidences provided
◦ The relevance of an argument toward the teams’ stance, or the contribution of an argument in
reaching the team’s intended goal
◦ The orthodoxy of the analysis
◦ If an argument fulfills all the criteria above, that’s an excellent argument. You
should vote for the team that provide better argumentation based on those
criteria.
Assessment of the Debate
 Assessing responses
 The criteria that adjudicators should rate in a response
 How effective it proves that the opponent’s arguments will not happen
 How effective it proves that the opponent’s impacts (harm/benefit) will not take place
 How effective it proves that the opponent’s arguments are irrelevant and insignificant to
the intended goal/team’s stance
 How effective it shows that the opponent’s arguments are internally inconsistent
 In short: how effective it oppose the logic behind an argument
 Questioning is not the same with responding. Until a speaker proves an
argument will not happen, that’s not a response yet
Assessment of the Debate
Assessing manner
◦ The things you should look at when assessing the manner of a speaker:
◦ How persuasive and clear a speaker is
◦ Intonation and volume
◦ Diction and effective use of words
◦ Remember, never give a team a victory based mainly on their manner. But, a
speaker with exceptional manner should deserve an appreciation.
How to give Margin?
The margin of score between winning and losing team (losing team get
negative margins)
Classification:
◦
◦
◦
◦
1 – 4: close winning
4 – 6: close-to-clear winning
8 – 12: clear winning
12 and up: thrashing debate
How to determine speakers’
score?
The standard of scoring:
◦ The average substantive speaker (1st, 2nd, 3rd) score is 75. Range: 69-81
◦ The average reply speaker is halve of substantive speaker, which is 37,5.
Range: 34,5-40,5
◦ The average of a team score ( a total score of 3 substantive and reply
speakers) therefore should be: 262,5
Guide for Scoring
Mark
Matter
69
70 - 72
No effort to fulfill the role. Barely talks.
Shows little effort in trying to fulfill the role. Some claims were made
but not substantiated . Hard to follow, little or no structure.
73-74
A better attempt in trying to fulfill the role. Arguments and responses
are in the form of assertion with weak reasoning. Poor structure.
75
The average speaker. Has fulfilled the basic role. Reasoning for
arguments and responses are adequate, but not fully developed.
Relatively easy to follow.
Guide for Scoring (cont’d)
Mark
76 - 77
Matter
The role is well fulfilled. The structure is unlikely to be problematic. Able
to provide a deep analysis on the arguments and the responses. Brought
in a persuasive manner.
78 – 79
Basically have no problem in fulfilling role and structure. Arguments are
fully developed and to certain extent are unorthodox. The evidences are
many, prevalent, and powerful.
80-81
Flawlessly executed. Able to provide many unorthodox responses and
arguments effectively. Sophisticated words are used that made the
elaborations are extremely powerful and enchanting
Oral Adjudication
 Process of explaining the reasons behind your decision to the debaters
 Prepare your oral adjudication!
 Verbal are conducted by the chair
 Issue: adjudicator may receive different result in a close debate
 Dissenting opinion is okay, as long as you have strong reasoning to do that
 Dissenting opinion are discussed in the conference. The chair may include the
dissenting opinion to create a better verbal (even the chair may dissent!)
 Inform the debater:
 The winning team only along with the margin
 Do not inform individual speaker score
 Give constructive feedback
 In this phase, you may give your expert opinions to help the debaters improve in
the next round
Conclusion of Adjudicator’s
Role
 The sequences of adjudicating





Decide the winning (assess the debate)
Determine the margin
Mark the score
Give the score sheet to the LO
Conference among chair and panels of adjudicator
 Note: conference should start only, and only, if all adjudicator already fill the score sheet
 Verbal (5 – 7 minutes)
 End of adjudication session. The debater may ask you while walking to the
hall.
 IMPORTANT: Adjudicator should not influence another adjudicator to
decide the result of the debate. All process to decide the winning team
should be done independently
 EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: Adjudicator should always assume the role of
average reasonable person. Do not put your personal knowledge to
decide the winning.
Conflict of Interest
A situation where your personal interest may cloud
your judgment and objectivity as an adjudicator.
Potential source of Conflicts:
◦ Institutional Affiliations (Almamater & Coaches)
◦ Family Members
◦ Past & Current Romantic Relationships
Q&A
Any questions?