How to adjudicate a debate and
decide a winner
When you judge a debate, your job is to
reflect what happened in that debate to
determine a winner.
Basic approach is to ask “which team
most persuaded me that their side or
position was correct.”
Style, strategy and content are all
relevant categories for determining which
teams persuaded you that their side was
correct.
When deciding a winner, the best
approach is to look at “areas of clash” or
the “main issues” that have emerged over
the course of the debate.
What is an area of clash?
In all debates material from both teams
will relate, or come under the umbrella, of
a larger broader issue.
In debates, there will be several
significant areas of clash or main issues
that the result of the debate depends on.
E.g.
- What is the correct moral position in
the debate?
- How will a particular stakeholder be
impacted by the policy?
- What will the societal impact of a policy
be?
For example in a debate on “This house would
remove sanctions on Cuba,” the main issues
could be:
- Is it moral to impose sanctions on Cuba?
- Are sanctions effective in creating internal
regime change in Cuba?
These areas of clash emerge from the
material from both teams in the debate whether it be substantive material or
rebuttal.
The areas of clash will always depend on
the material in a particular debate.
They should cover the important material
in that debate.
Part of judging is deciding which team
won each area of clash.
The other part is weighing the importance
of each area in terms of the overall
debate.
How do you decide which team
has won an area of clash?
This involves elements of style, content
and strategy.
You should first look at how well
substantiated or developed a point is in a
team’s case - how much did they prove
the material on its own?
This includes:
-Looking at mechanisms (have they
explained why the point/outcome will
happen in the way they say it will)
-Do they have persuasive examples that
assist to prove the point they are
making?
-What is the effect of the point they are
making? How much does it matter?
Second, you should look at how each
team has engaged with the opposing
team’s material (“rebuttal”).
Rebuttal relates both to negating material
from the opposing team and also in many
cases reducing its significance in a
debate.
Often substantive material from both
teams will indirectly relate to one
another.
Third, the relative prioritisation of material
will be relevant - when did the material
come out in the debate and how much
time was spent on it?
Overall, you should aim to be
comparative.
Look at the material of both teams, how
they have engaged, and decide which
team has been more persuasive for the
issue at the end.
This can involve deciding what is the
most likely response by
stakeholders/actors to a policy based on
both teams material?
E.g. How citizens of Cuba react to
sanctions
How do you decide a winner
based on these areas of clash?
Involves a weighing up of the
areas of clash in the debate.
Depends on:
- To what extent has a team won an area of
clash?
- What has a team proven through that area of
clash? What is its significance in the debate?
- Overall, what appeared to be the biggest issue
in the debate?