Bcfljudgemanual 11

2011-2012
BCFL JUDGING GUIDE

A Compilation
Prepared by the BCFL Executive Committee

LEADERSHIP THROUGH SPEECH

Dear friend,

Welcome!

The students and coaches of the Baltimore Catholic Forensics League thank you
for your willingness to volunteer and judge at our tournaments. We simply could
not operate our tournaments without your support. We recognize the sacrifice of
time and energy that your commitment involves, and we are grateful.

Whether you are a seasoned competitor who is making the transition to judging, or
are at your very first forensics tournament, this handbook has been designed for
you. It contains information that will help you navigate BCFL tournaments, and
judge each of our events. J udging requires no special background or experience
other than an open mind, and a willingness to watch and listen.

If you have any questions, there are many coaches and other judges at the
tournament that would be glad to offer their help. Remember, we all were new
judges at some point! You can also stop by the tab room and we will be glad to
answer your question.

Forensics offers so many benefits and opportunities for growth to our students, and
we are glad that you will have the chance to help them refine their skills and
develop into leaders. We think youll really enjoy what our students have prepared
for you.

Sincerely,
Charles Donovan
BCFL Diocesan Director

JUDGING FORENSICS TOURNAMENTS AN OVERVIEW
(Adapted from the NYCFL Judging Manual)

This guide is designed to help you become an effective judge at Baltimore Catholic Forensic
League tournaments. We hope that it will answer many of your questions about:
1. The operation of our contests
2. The effective evaluation of competitors in contest rounds
3. The rules and practices in each event

Our students are serious about their work. They put a great deal of time, energy, and care into the
preparation of their events. We want, of course, for them to have positive and successful
experiences in forensics.

To this end, we hope that each of you will take the time to read this guide thoroughly before
arriving at your first tournament as a judge or observer. It does not take special talent or expertise
to become an effective judge. It does, however, take time, energy and care. It takes a positive and
supportive outlook. It takes a willingness to fine tune your critical listening skills and apply
them to the contest setting.

We hope that this information will help to make your judging experience a positive one for you
and for the students you hear as well. We know that you will enjoy hearing them. These talented
and motivated students truly are the future leaders of our society, and we can help prepare them
assume these leadership roles by helping them improve their communication skills. We are
grateful to you for your time and hope to see a good deal of you in the contests to come.

Overview of the Day

Plan to arrive at the tournament between 8:00 and 8:30 AM. When you arrive, you should head
to the registration table, which will be set up somewhere near the entrance or in the student
cafeteria. Look for your name on the judge list and check it off that way we know that you are
here, and we can assign you to rounds! You should also let your teams coach know that you
have arrived. From there, you can head to the judges lounge for some hospitality.

At around 8:45, the day begins with an opening assembly for all students and judges. Following
that, students are dismissed to their rooms, and a short judge meeting will be held. The meeting
is where last minute instructions will be given, and round 1 ballots will be distributed. After the
meeting, the competition begins.

Each tournament offers three rounds of competition in each event. These rounds run
consecutively from about 9:15 until about 4:30. A schedule (schematic) of when each of the
events will run, what rooms they will be in, and who will judge them will be posted in the
cafeteria and in the judges lounge. J udges should typically expect to receive two or three
assignments throughout the course of the day. If you dont receive an assignment for a particular
round, you should remain in the judges lounge for a little while past the start of the round, in
case we need to make a last-minute substitution. Periodically, coaches will offer workshops on
the different competition events; if you are free, you are welcome to attend one of those to learn
more!

When you are assigned to judge a round, you will receive a ballot (or, if you missed the
distribution in the judges lounge, you will need to pick up your ballot at the tab table). The
ballot will list what room you are judging in and what competitors you will be hearing. The
ballot contains useful instructions on the event and judging the round, so read it carefully! After
the round is over, you will need to fill out your ballot with your decision or ranking (more on that
later), and then you should return the ballot promptly to the tab table.

Upon completion of the third round, there will be an awards assembly in the student cafeteria.

Specific Judging Responsibilities During the Round

When the judges meeting comes to a close, you will be directed to proceed to your individual
classrooms for the first round of competition. In general, the students involved are nervous,
concerned about making a good impression upon you, and anxious to perform at the best of their
abilities. It tends to make them even more nervous to hear a judge say, Ive never done this
before, so just bear with me. They are not, in general, experienced or mature enough to realize
that this does not automatically mean that you are incapable of making sound decisions. It is not
our aim to impose any additional stress factors upon our students. It is our aim to draw what is
best from each student. To help you to be as supportive of their efforts as possible, here is a list
of guide of guidelines for you to follow in conducting a round of competition. Certainly many of
the points made here are rooted in simple common sense and courtesy, but a friendly reminder is
never harmful.

Greet the students:
Greet them in a friendly and confident manner. Again it is not your aim to intimidate. Rather,
you should encourage the students to function at the very best of their respective abilities

Take roll:
J ust read through the list of codes on the schematic for the group so that you are certain that the
right speakers are in the right place. If there is a question about a certain student, please bring it
to the attention of the executive committee.

In debate, many rounds are flighted, which means that you will be listening to two sets of
student debates (A and B), back to back. Debaters in the A flight typically debate first, followed
by those in the B flight. Make sure that the right students are debating each other! If both B
flight competitors are present but the A flight competitors arent, its fine to start with B.

In speech, students may be entered in multiple events, so not all of them may be present when
you are ready to begin the round. That is fine; just proceed with who you have, and the others
should show up shortly. If a student is running very late or does not arrive by the end of the
round, send a student to the tab room to check on their status.

Choose a seat:
Although, this may, initially, seem a facetious remark, it is important to seat yourself in a
comfortable and convenient place. It is often preferable to sit approximately s of the way back
in the middle of the room where you will have an unobstructed view of the students and where
the students can see you easily. You and the students in your group may wish to do a little
shifting of furniture to establish a space for speaking which will make clear sight lines possible
for all. Please make sure that all furniture is returned to its previous location at the conclusion of
each round!

Prepare your ballot / critique sheets.
In debate, make sure you have the names of the students written properly, in the right location
(affirmative or negative). In speech, there will be a master ballot at the top of your packet.
Make sure that it is filled out properly. Then, for each speaker, you should fill out one critique
sheet. The critique sheet should include the students code, selection, title, and author. Make
sure your name and the school you are judging for is also included..

Begin the round:
Once your ballots are ready, ask the first speaker how he/she would like to be made aware of the
passage of time. Try to do so in a relaxed, friendly, and comfortable way. Accurate
time keeping is your responsibility. Even if the speaker does not wish to see time signals, you
must keep track of the time of the presentation. If you do not keep careful track of the time or fail
to provide time signals if the speaker requested them, you may not penalize the speaker.
Debaters may choose to time themselves, which is fine, but you should still use your own timer
to back them up, to prevent misunderstanding.

Write your critical comments on the ballot:
In speech, write comments while the speaker is performing. Although it is desirable for you to
make eye contact with the speaker fairly frequently, it is not necessary for you to be glued to
the speaker throughout the entire speech. Simply try to maintain a reasonable balance in your
focal attention. In debate, you will find it helpful to keep track of each debaters main points and
responses on a sheet of paper (the flow). That way, youll have something to refer to at the
end of the debate when you need to make your decision.

Thank the group for their efforts:
At the end of the last speakers presentation, you may excuse the speakers to move onto their
next rooms.

Fill out your ballot
In speech, the speaker you feel performed the best should be ranked 1st; the next best should be
ranked 2nd; and so on. No ties may be given in rank. In debate, one side must be given the win
and the other the loss, and points should be awarded (more on that later). These are hard
decisions to make, but they need to be made quickly because speakers will be waiting for the
room and the executive committee is waiting for the results of your decision.

Overtime penalty:
In speech, if a speaker exceeds the time limit for the category and the allowed 30 second grace
period, then that speaker may not be ranked first. You do not need to penalize the speaker any
farther. However, if you feel the excessive length of the presentation detracted from the
performance, you may take that into account in your ranking. Please keep in mind that there is no
required minimum time in any of the events.

Check everything:
In speech;
- Did you rank the best person first?
- Does everyone have a rank?
- Do the ranks on the master ballot match those on the critique sheet?
- Do your critique sheets explain the reason for your decision?
In debate:
- Did you give one side the win and the other the loss?
- Did you award points to each side? (In policy debate, each student gets a rank and points)
- Does the ballot explain the reason for your decision?

Immediately turn in your ballots and go to the next round:
This helps to keep the tournament running smoothly.

General Comments and Suggestions

Try to find a way to have a speaker that may get flustered or upset to finish the round:
This may mean letting them sit for a while, get a copy of their manuscript, or take a deep breath.
This should be reflected in the speakers rank, but the student will have at least completed the
round.

Quietly correct behavior that is inappropriate:
Remind students that it is as important to be good audience members as it is to be good speakers.
Mention it on the students ballot and bring it to the attention of the executive committee if you
believe the behavior warrants it.

Do not give oral critiques, and do not disclose your decision:
The ballot is the place for your comments about the speakers presentation. That performance is
the result of much concentrated work on the part of both the student and the coach. A helpful
hint (no matter how noble the intent) might actually do a student a disservice. If you feel that
you want to clarify or further explain your comments or decisions, speak to the students coach
or moderator at some point.

Read the ballot:
The criteria for each category is given on the ballot. Rules about materials permitted, time
limits, and evaluation criteria are detailed on the ballot. Read it thoroughly and become familiar
with the requirements for the category that you are judging.

Personal biases have no place in your evaluation:
Speakers may take positions that are contrary to beliefs that you feel strongly about and may
perform speeches with content that you feel is questionable. Allow the speaker as much freedom
as possible and evaluate their performance rather than their beliefs. In debate, leave your
personal opinions out of your decision -- make your decision on the merits of the students
arguments rather than who you personally believe is right. If material is questionable or in
conflict with what you believe the league stands for, then rate the round based on
performance and bring the objection to the executive committee.

J udge the performance as a whole;
Do not take the easy way out and rank a person or team last simply because they were too loud
or too fast. Evaluate their performance against the performances of the other speakers in the
round.

Please make your comments on the ballot as supportive and helpful as possible:
This does not mean that all of your comments should be glowing, but neither does it mean that
all should be negative. Provide both. Give speakers a specific indication of why you ranked
them as you did. Tough round or good job comments are too general; the more detail you
can provide about what they did well or not so well, the better. It is important for you to
remember that you are the adult and that your comments should be written as if the speaker were
your student, or son/daughter. Criticism should be constructive, never demeaning. Remember,
our goal is to make the students better, not drive them away.

Try to look interested in each speakers presentation
It should not be necessary to ask that you do not read the newspaper, surf the Internet, or wander
about looking at work on the walls, etc. while a student is speaking. All cell phones, your own
and the students, should be turned off. When possible doors should be closed. These are basic
courtesies, but strange things have been known to occur during rounds of competition.

Cell Phone Use is STRICTLY Prohibited in all rounds.
Make every effort to ensure that your cell phone is OFF and put away. If you must use your cell
phone for timing purposes (strongly discouraged borrow a timer from the tab room if needed),
then make absolutely sure that the phone has been silenced. Theres nothing worse than to have
a phone go off right at the height or someones performance or main argument.

WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION???

National Catholic Forensics League : www.ncfl.org (Our parent organization)
National Forensic League: www.nflonline.org (Many resources for folks new to forensics)
Baltimore Catholic Forensics League: www.bcfl.net (Our league website)
National Forensic League TV: www.nfltv.org (Videos of various events)
Forensics Online: www.forensicsonline.net (Student forums and blogs)
SPEECH CATEGORY SUMMARIES AND BALLOTS

Specific Speech Event Summaries

Extemporaneous Speaking: Student speaking on some topic of current events.

1. Students have a 30 minute prep time before speaking. These rounds may have a delay until the first competitor
arrives. Check with the prep roomif you have questions.
2. Speakers have a 7 minute time limit (30 second grace period). Competitors rely heavily on time signals by the judge.
Use hand signals from5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutesetc. A fist indicates to the student that 7 minutes have expired.
Continue timing until the student is done. Record the time on the ballot.
3. Students should hand you a copy of the question they have been assigned along with their code.
4. The student is judged on how thoroughly they answer the question (not if you agree with the position or not) and the
style in which he/she speaks. He/She MUST present citations or evidence fromcurrent newspapers, magazines, or
other literature to support their answer to the question.
5. The student may NOT have notes in any formwhile speaking.

Original Oratory: A student presents a speech which he/she has written on any topic.

1. Students have a 10 minute (30 second grace period)
2. Student has written and memorized (no scripts) a speech about any topic of their choice.
3. The purpose of the speech may be to inspire, to persuade, to eulogize, or to inform. There can be an overlapping of
these styles within the oration.
4. The judge should not allow their personal bias to influence their decision.
5. Critique both the speech (how it conveys the message) and the style of the speaker-use of voice tone, emotional tenor,
change in voice, use of gestures, eye contact, etc.

Oratorical Declamation: (Limited to Frosh and Sophs) A student presents a memorized speech written by another orator.

2. An introduction is memorized and must contain information about the author and original setting for the speech. It lasts
no longer than 60 seconds.
3. The student has chosen a speech previously given by another person and memorized it. The competitors presentation is
an interpretation of the meaning of the message of the original speech.
4. The judge should critique the delivery of the speech not its content.

Oral Interpretation of Literature: A student presents both a poetry or prose selection of their choice.

2. An introduction is memorized and not lasting more than 60 seconds.
3. POETRY ROUNDThe student has chosen one or several poems all united by a connecting theme; he/she will be
reading froma script with an emphasis on interpreting the meaning of each piece.
4. PROSE ROUNDThe student has chosen a short story or cutting fromprose writing; he/she will be reading froma
script with an emphasis on character development and climax in the selection.
5. The student should maintain a balance of eye contact between the script and the audience.

Dramatic Performance: A student performs a portion of a published play or movie.

2. An introduction is memorized and not lasting more than 60 seconds. (Students may choose to begin their presentation
then interject the introduction. This is known as a teaser.) It MUST be made obvious when the teaser stops and the
introduction begins!
3. The student shall have selected a scene (or scenes) froma published play and have it memorized. There may be
multiple characters. The performance is judged on character distinction, and development of the scene to a climax.
4. Changes fromcharacter to character within the presentation should be clean and crisp.
5. Singing is restricted to 30 seconds or less.
Duo Interpretation of Literature: Two students performa portion of a published piece of literature.

2. An introduction is memorized and not lasting more than 60 seconds. (Students may choose to begin their presentation
then interject the introduction. This is known as a teaser.) It MUST be made obvious when the teaser stops and the
introduction begins!
3. This event is made up of a two person team. They each may do multiple characters. The same ranking is given to both
students.
4. Selections can be froma story, play, or cutting froma novel that has each student cast as different characters. A
narrator should not dominate the cutting.
5. The students should have the cutting memorized and NOT have a script. The illusion of actions should be seen
but not acting out their parts.
6. The students should not have eye contact with each other during the selection and physical movement should be
restricted to pivoting fromside to side, turning around completely, moving around each other, or switching places.
Students may NOT touch during the presentation.
7. Singing is restricted to 30 seconds or less.

Impromptu: Student speaking on a quote drawn during the round.

1. Students choose one quote from the slip and must prepare a speech about the quote. The
prep time should not exceed 2 minutes. (Give them 30 second warnings.)
2. Speakers have a 7 minute time limit (30 second grace period) to both prepare and speak.
Competitors rely heavily on time signals by the judge. Use hand signals from 5 minutes,
4 minutes, 3 minutesetc. A fist indicates to the student that 7 minutes have expired.
Continue timing until the student is done. Record the time on the ballot.
3. Students should indicate which to you which quote they have chosen.
4. The student is judged on how he/she organizes the speech being creative in response to the
quote and the presentation skills.
5. The student may have notes while speaking.

Childrens Literature: A student presents poetry or prose selection for children.

2. An introduction is memorized and not lasting more than 60 seconds.
3. The student has chosen appropriate to children between the ages of kindergarten and six
grade. The introduction should state the age group and the presentation should appeal to
that group.
4. A text is required and therefore limits movement so the voice and facial reactions should be
used in judging the presentation. NO props or costumes.
5. The student should maintain a balance of eye contact between the script and the audience.

Revised 01/2006 After Fall 2005 NCFL Meeting
Do Not Write in this Space
Time: ________________
10 min. w/ 30 sec. grace period
NATIONAL CATHOLIC FORENSIC LEAGUE
Critique Sheet for
ORATORICAL DECLAMATION
Round____ Room ______ Students Name: ________________________________ Code _______ Rank _____ of _____
Selection Title: _______________________________________________________Author:__________________________
Judges Name: ______________________________________________________________ Judges Code:_____________
Judges School /League:_________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE USE THE REVERSE TO COMMENT ON POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE PERFORMANCE, AND TO PROVIDE
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS. BE CERTAIN TO INCLUDE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR RANKING.
Criteria for judging:
Introduction: The introduction must name the work and author, provide necessary background
information and establish the mood. If using a teaser, or if lines from the selection are used in the
introduction, the speakers must adhere to the rules of the event.
Presentation Style: The speaker should convey the message in a sincere, honest and realistic attempt to
recreate the spirit of the original presentation. Although the style of delivery chosen by the speaker
should be judged in light of the purpose of the speech, artificiality is to be discredited. The message should
be conveyed credibly and convincingly as if the words were the speakers own. This event is an
interpretation, not an impersonation.
Vocal Delivery: The speaker should be articulate and fluent. The speaker should make use of contrast,
making use of the elements of vocal variety: pitch, volume, rate, pausing, phrasing, stress, tone. The
speaker should be conversational and concerned, passionate and pleasing. The speaker should be in
control of the words and the emotions. The speaker should sound confident and self-assured, and seem
eager to enlighten the audience. The speaker should convey the message in a sincere, honest, and realistic
style in an attempt to recreate the spirit of the original presentation.
Physical Delivery: The speaker should be physically open to the audience and use body language that
invites the audience into the world of the declaimer. The speaker should vary facial expression to
accentuate the natural flow of thoughts and feelings. The speaker should make eye contact with the
audience. The speakers stance should be erect and controlled, without distracting movements. Movement,
if used, should be motivated by transitions in thought or mood. Gestures should be visible, effectively
used for emphasis, and varied.
Overall Effect: The speaker should project an understanding of the speechs message. The speaker should
instill in the audience a concern for the speechs content. The original speakers message should not be
overshadowed by the delivery. Consideration should be given to the oratorical merit of the selection.
Revised 10/2003
introduction, the speaker must adhere to the rules of the event.
Material: Single or multiple character cuttings should be considered equally. The student should be able
to capture and convey the emotional and intellectual depths of the characters, as well as the
development of both the characterization and plot. Consideration should be given to the literary merit of
the selection.
Characterization: Each character should be interesting, engaging and lifelike. The performer should
create a physical, vocal and temperamental existence suited for each character. The performer should
keep these choices consistent. The performer should use his or her face, eyes and body to create the
characters effectively. Each character should show the intent of what he/she is wanting, thinking,
feeling and remembering when speaking and reacting. Characters should appropriately develop and/ or
deepen as the plot or story line progresses.
Multiple Characterizations (if used): The transitions when moving from one character to another should
be clean and crisp. The pacing of transition should reflect the tempo of the interaction.
Environment: Each character should create a world around him or her. Movement should be used to
create a three-dimensional environment in which the characters exist. Pantomime, if used, should be
accurate and realistic. Gestures should be fully realized, creating in just the right way what the
performer intends the audience to see. When doing a multiple character selection, the performer should
create effective interaction between the characters.
Overall Effect: The overall performance should build to various moments and have a climax. The story
should be complete and easy to follow. The performance should display another world outside of the
performance space.
Time: ________________
Critique Sheet for
DRAMATIC PERFORMANCE
Round____ Room ______ Students Name: _______________________________ Code _______ Rank _____ of _____
Selection Title: _____________________________________________________ Author:___________________________
Revised 01/2006 after Fall 2005 NCFL Meeting
Material: The material being presented should allow for interesting character choices and reasonable plot
structure. The material should be appropriate for the students. Consideration should be given to the
literary merit of the selection.
Interaction and environment: The performers should convince you that they truly see the other
character(s). Each character should listen and react, with face and body especially as the other is talking.
What one character says or does should provoke a fitting vocal, physical and emotional response from the
other character. The characters should see and respond to what is around them. They should take the
audience into the physical world of their story. The interpreters will vocally and physically respond to
each others verbal and non-verbal cues while maintaining an off stage focus.
Characterization: Each character should convey a distinct, consistent personality, stance, and manner of
gesturing. Each character should be sufficiently developed and should interact meaningfully with the
other characters.
Physicality: The physical movement and portrayal should contribute to the overall aesthetics of the
presentation. A realistic environment should be established by the performers. Pantomime, if used, should
be accurate and realistic.
Vocal Quality: The interpreters, within character, should appropriately vary pitch, volume, rate,
emphasis, quality, phrasing and intensity to convey the various moods and messages in the story.
Overall Effect: The overall performance should build to various moments and have a climax. The
performance should be complete and easy to follow. The performance should display another world
outside of the performance space.
Time: ________________
Critique Sheet for
DUO INTERPRETATION OF LITERATURE
Round____ Room ______ Students Names: _______________________________ Code _______ Rank _____ of _____
Selection Title: ______________________________________________________ Author:__________________________
Revised 10/2003
Topicality: The speaker should state and answer the question accurately. The speech should be
organized so that all content contained therein is relevant to the questions answer. The speaker should
be held accountable to the strict adherence to the precise statement of the topic selected and should be
penalized for any obvious shifting to a different topic. Speakers must not be penalized for expressing
views with which the judge happens to disagree.
Structure: The introduction should gain attention, lead to the question, provide an answer to the
question,and/or justify the importance of the topic, and give some direction as to how the speech will
unfold or develop. The body should be organized to best answer the question. Transitional words/devices
should help to move the speech from point to point. The conclusion should restate the question and
answer, succinctly summarize the speechs main points highlighting how they led to the questions
answer, and end interestingly.
Content: This presentation should be an original speech developing the issue(s) raised by the selected
topic. It should be a synthesis of current facts and opinions on the subject, not a mere listing of current
data. The information presented in the speech should be accurate and timely. Sources consulted by the
speaker during the preparation time should be cited effectively in the speech. These sources should be
varied and credible. The speaker should make clear and reasonable use of the research, and provide
explanation of the issues that is easy to follow.
Language: The word choice should be clear and precise, interesting and easy to understand. If employed,
creative devices, analogies, metaphors, alliteration, word plays, and the like should be effectively used and
advance the purpose of the speech.
Vocal Delivery: The speaker should be audible, articulate and fluent. The speaker should make use of
contrast, making use of the elements of vocal variety: pitch, volume, rate, pausing, phrasing, stress, tone.
The speaker should stress words to enhance meaning. The speaker should be conversational and
concerned, passionate and pleasing. The speaker should be in control of the words and the emotions. The
speaker should sound confident throughout the presentation.
Physical Delivery: The speaker should vary facial expression to accentuate the natural flow of thoughts
and feelings. The speakers eyes should show thinking and feeling. The speaker should make eye contact
with the audience. The speakers stance should be erect and controlled, without distracting movements.
Movement, if used, should be motivated by transitions in thought or mood. Gestures should be visible,
effectively used for emphasis, and varied.
Time: ________________
Critique Sheet for
EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEAKING
Topic:________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE USE THIS SIDE AND THE REVERSE TO COMMENT ON POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE PERFORMANCE AND TO
PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS. BE CERTAIN TO INCLUDE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR RANKING.
Revised 10/2003
Projection of Literature: The interpreter should demonstrate a clear understanding of the literature and
project its meaning, message and tone. The speaker should capture and convey the plot and/or
development. Imagery should be carefully colored so as to promote audience understanding and
appreciation. In a presentation of a collection, there should be a unity to the program as a whole, made
clear by the introduction and transitional material. Consideration should be given to the literary merit
of the selection.
Narrator/Character Creation: The narrator should be believable and conversational. The narrator
should be able to lead the audience through the details of the literature, keeping a consistent and clear
attitude toward people, objects and events within the literature. In collections, the interpreter should
develop and maintain unique and distinct narrative voices for each selection within the program. If they
are utilized, character voices should be distinctive, consistent and appropriate to the character. The
interpreter should be able to demonstrate the characters feelings and thoughts through the use of vocal
inflections, facial expressions including visualization, and appropriate intensity.
Visualization: The interpreter should help the audience to see the particular world of the narrator. The
interpreter should establish a strong sense of environment. The interpreter should be able to see and
replay the events described or recalled in the literature. The interpreter should use facial expressions
and gestures appropriately to bring the script to life.
Vocal Variety: The interpreter should appropriately vary pitch, volume, rate, and intensity to convey the
various moods and messages in the literature. Appropriate words should be stressed for clarity and
understanding. The interpreter should appropriately play with sound devices such as alliteration, and
attend to the sound and meaning of every word. For poetry, the interpreter should capture and
effectively vary existing poetic rythmn, making use of rhyme when necessary and avoiding it when not.
Audience and Script Contact: The interpreter should invite the audience into the presentation, directing
eye contact and expressing his or her feelings to individual audience members when appropriate and
necessary and consulting the script when it is not. The interpreter should focus away from the audience
and the script effectively during moments of internal and private thoughts. There should be a natural
balance between the audience and script where one does not take precedence over the other. The
interpreter should stay in the moment, with facial expression and emotional consistency, when making
contact with the manuscript.
Overall Effect: The overall performance should build to various moments and have a climax. The
performance should be easy to follow and complete. The performance should display another world
outside of the performance space.
Time: ________________
Critique Sheet for
ORAL INTERPRETATION OF LITERATURE
Selection Title: ______________________________________________________ Author:__________________________
Revised 10/2003
Topic: The topic should be interesting, stimulating, and of some importance. The purpose of the
oration may be to inspire, to persuade, to eulogize, or to inform. These purposes may overlap in the
same oration. Speakers must not be penalized for expressing views with which the judge happens to
disagree.
Structure: The introduction should gain attention, specify a clear thesis, and give some direction as
to how the speech will unfold or develop. The body should be organized for easy understanding.
Transitional words/devices should help to move the speech from point to point. The conclusion should
recap, make you want to think more about the topic, and end interestingly.
Development: The speaker should be held accountable for substantiating and supporting main
positions. There should be a variety of effective supporting material from qualified sources. There
should be clear explanation that helps the listener follow the speechs flow and appreciate the use of
supporting material.
Language: The word choice should be clear and potent. Figures of speech and rhetorical devices
should be used effectively.
Vocal Delivery: The speaker should be articulate and fluent. The speaker should make use of
contrast, and make use of the elements of vocal variety: pitch, volume, rate, pausing, phrasing, stress,
tone. The speaker should stress words to enhance meaning. The speaker should be conversational
and concerned, passionate and pleasing. The speaker should be in control of the words and the
emotions.
Physical Delivery: The speaker should vary facial expression to accentuate the natural flow of
thoughts and feelings. The speakers eyes should show thinking and feeling. The speaker should
make eye contact with the audience. The speakers stance should be erect and controlled, without
distracting movements. Movement, if used, should be motivated by transitions in thought or mood.
Gestures should be visible, effectively used for emphasis, and varied.
Delivery and content should be evaluated equally.
Time: ________________
Critique Sheet for
ORIGINAL ORATORY
Title: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Guide to Public Forum Debate
Public Forum Debate (PFD) is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by the monthly resolution topic
(announced online at www.nflonline.org). The clash of ideas must be communicated in a manner persuasive to the
non-specialist or citizen judge, i.e. a member of the American jury. The debate should:
! Display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis
! Utilize evidence without being driven by it
! Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team (rebuttal)
! Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum
The Topic ~ Topics are worded as resolutions,
meaning they advocate solving a problem by establishing a
position. Teams must understand the meaning of
terminology in a consistent manner so debates have a clash
of ideas. If the topic were Resolved: Free trade benefits
all nations, it would be vital to understand the concept of
free trade. An expert definition from an economics or legal
dictionary or encyclopedia would be preferable to a
standard dictionary. If the topic, Resolved: NATO
countries should act together on international matters,
the more common terms act and together could be
appropriately defined by a standard dictionary. Given the
limited time of a round, debate should not center on
obscure claims of minutia.
Case Development & Evidence
A team must develop both a pro and con
case, persuasively supported by evidence
and reasoning. Given the short nature of a
Public Forum round, cases should center on
a few quality arguments. A team, however,
should research several arguments on both sides
of the issue, so it can adapt its case to the opposing teams
claims as necessary. Having arguments in direct
contradiction with each other will enhance clash in
rebuttals. Organization of speeches through effective
communication and clear outlines is important so both
judges and the opposing team can follow each of the
arguments and their supporting evidence. Effective
persuasion requires credible, unbiased, quality supporting
evidence, which may include a mix of facts, statistics,
expert quotations, studies, polls; but it may also be real-life
examples, anecdotes, analogies, and personal experience.
Since topics are based on current events, research should
be accessible through periodicals, Web search engines and
think tanks. Teams should not overwhelm their case with
evidence; rather, they should select the best evidence to
represent their claims.
The Coin Flip ~ The round starts with a
coin toss; the winning team selects either:
! The side (pro or con) they will argue
! The speaker order (begin the debate
or give the last speech).
The team that loses the toss will then
decide their preference from the option
not selected by the winner (i.e., if the
winning team decides to speak last, then the losing team may
decide which side they will argue). The debate, therefore may
begin with the con side, arguing against the topic. Teams
might consider: Is one side of the topic more acceptable
to citizen judges? On which side is the team stronger?
On which side of the topic are the opponents stronger? Is
the first speaker position critical to sell the case by
making a good first impression? Is the final focus speech
critical for the last word to the judge(s)? Are the
opponents so effective in either the first or last speaker
position that our team needs to select speaker position
rather than side? The first team sits to the judges left.

Speeches and Time Limits
Speaker 1 (Team A, 1st speaker ).........................4 min.
Speaker 2 (Team B, 1st speaker)...........................4 min.
Crossfire (between speakers 1 & 2).................3 min.
Speaker 3 (Team A, 2nd speaker ) .......................4 min.
Speaker 4 (Team B, 2nd speaker )........................4 min.
Crossfire (between speakers 3 & 4).................3 min.
Speaker 1 Summary..................................................2 min.
Speaker 2 Summary..................................................2 min.
Grand Crossfire (all speakers) ........................3 min.
Speaker 3 Final Focus...............................................2 min.
Speaker 4 Final Focus...............................................2 min.
Each team may use up to two minutes of prep time.

First Pro Speech ~ This speech constructs
arguments advocating the resolutions worthiness. The key
analysis will be to present major reasons why there is a
problem. An underlying concept will always be the risk of
change versus the risk of not changing. This speech should
have a brief introduction to frame the teams case for the
judge. If a definition is important to understanding the case,
it should be presented from the most appropriate source.
A few reasons for adopting the topic should be presented
with accompanying evidence. Each reason should be an
independent reason to vote for the resolution, and should
explain why it is pertinent. The speech should conclude
with a summary of the arguments covered.
First Con Speech ~ This speech constructs
arguments showing disadvantages of the resolution and
why it should not be adopted. If the pro speech has the
advantage of a changing future, the con speech has a
track record of experience (status quo) and why change is
ill-advised The rest of the speech elements will be the
same as the pro speech.

2 Guide to Public Forum Debate 2009 National Forensic League

Strategies for the Second Team ~ If the
team feels that the opponents case is based on a faulty or
unfair interpretation of the resolution, they should
provide counter definitions and convincingly explain why
their perspective is more appropriate. Whichever side
speaks second may also choose to drop a reason from
the prepared speech and spend time instead refuting
claims presented by the other team. This strategy should
be employed when one of the arguments directly clashes
with the other teams or when the team believes one of
the opponents arguments is based on a false definition or
assumption.

Third & Fourth Constructive Speeches
Both of these debaters have the primary burden of refuting
the other teams arguments by analyzing and explaining
flaws in the opponents position. The debater should
identify the oppositions key arguments and attack their
legitimacy by: turning the analysis to the other side;
presenting evidence that destroys or reduces the opposing
position; presenting alternate causes that are not
accounted for by the opposition argument; exposing
argument inconsistencies between the speakers or
between the opponents and their statements during
crossfire. To best accomplish refutation, both members of
a team should have a consistent approach and a unified
view of what is important and less important. An argument
format could be an introduction that links the teams
second speech to the first speech, followed by an overview
of the issue, which is frequently the opponents argument,
followed by reasons/evidence why the opponent is wrong,
followed by what this argument clash now means for your
side in the debate. In addition, some time in either of these
speeches should be allocated to rebuilding the original
case. It is important to have clarity that is seldom attained
by an intricate outline. Speeches should conclude with a
summary.

Summary Speeches ~ These are complicated
speeches because each debater has to find a way to explain
issues in the light of all that has happened so far in just
two minutes without speaking too rapidly. New
evidence, but not new arguments may be presented, except
responses (refutation). This means that a limited number
of issues can be addressed. For example, perhaps develop
one to two issues from the debaters side on the
resolution and one from the opponents side of the
resolution. The speech should have a brief
overview. On each key argument,
try to add a short original quotation,
anecdote, or fact. Wrap up each
argument by stressing its importance
in arriving at a fair decision.
The Final Focus ~ This frames, with clarity, why
your team has won the debate. Again, no new arguments
may be presented, however, new evidence may be
introduced to support an argument made earlier in the
debate. Before the final focus, ask, If I were judging this
round, what would I be voting on? Strategies may include:
! Choose the most important argument you are
winning, and summarize the analysis and evidence that
make it so important.
! Turn a major argument from your opponent into the
winning analysis and evidence of one of your
important arguments; this technique clinches two
arguments.
! Answer the most important argument you may be
losing by summarizing the analysis and evidence that
you believe takes out the opponents argument.
! Choose an argument that you believe the community
judge will most likely vote on.
! Expose a major inconsistency made by your
opponenttwo arguments that contradict each
otherat least one of which the opponent is focusing
on to win the debate.

Art of Argumentation
The quantity of arguments is less
important than the quality of
arguments, just as the quantity of
evidence is less important than the
quality of evidence. Thus we come to
three important components of an argument: claim,
evidence, and warrant. A claim is a major argument
made on either side of the resolution. On the resolution,
Resolved that NATO countries should have acted
together in Iraq, a claim could be that animosities would
be reduced because one nation would not bear the brunt
of the responsibility for the invasion. To prove this to be
true, a debate must provide evidence, proving that the
claim is valid. The debater chooses at least one type of
evidence that will support the claim even when challenged.
In the above example, much credible evidence exists that
resistance is high because the United States for the most
part acted alone. Perhaps the most crucial component of
argumentation is the warrant. Warrants connect the
claim and its support, sometime obviously, sometime
subtly. Warrants emerge from the total sum of our
experiences and personal observations. Thus it is entirely
possible that the debater and the judge have a different set
of experiences. The warrant for the claim used in the
NATO example should connect the judge to the thesis,
perhaps by making anecdotal comments about how
everyone is much better satisfied when cooperation exists,
whether among people or nations. On the other hand,
the opposing team can counter that forcing nations to
cooperate with each other when that is not their wish
alienates allies and ruins alliances. Turn the evidence
against the team and make the logical warrant that such a
NATO policy for Iraq would have destroyed NATO,
would have kept us operating in Iraq by ourselves, and
would have destroyed the unity for future NATO
missions. Warrants provide believable reasons why a
claim and evidence are true. That is why evidence without
analysis can result in an assertion without substance and an
argument lost. Arguments and evidence without warrants
are seldom persuasive.

2009 National Forensic League Guide to Public Forum Debate 3

Crossfire ~ Questioning periods give debate
interactivity and a change to build clash. In crossfire, both
debaters have equal access to the floor, but the first
question must be asked to the debater who just finished
speaking by a debater from the other team. After the initial
question and answer, either debater may question or
answer. A debater who attempts to dominate or be rude
to his opponent will lose points.
Good questions are brief and
good answers must meet the
question. In the first two
crossfires, only the
corresponding speakers may
participate, and they stand
next to each other.

Grand Crossfire ~ Seated, all debaters interact
with one another. The first question is asked to the team
that just ended its summary by the other team. After the
initial question and answer, any debater may question or
answer, and all should participate. The same guidelines for
rudeness and stalling apply to the grand crossfire. Resist
rushing questions or answers, or trying to do too much in
crossfire; desperation is not persuasive.
Prep Time ~ Each team has two
minutes of prep time. For very
practical reasons, a team should not
use prep time until their summary
speech or final focus speech. Being
prepared on the arguments is the best
way to avoid using prep time until it is vital to select the
key arguments and issues.
Delivery ~ Effective delivery is critical to impact the
arguments for a citizen judge. Practice delivery in front of
ordinary people: teachers, parents, relatives, friends, non-
debate classmates. Heed their advice. If they tell you to
slow down, slow down; if they tell you to quit repeating
yourself, start your sentences with the subject and avoid
compound complex sentences; if they tell you to enunciate
more clearly, practice with a pencil in your mouth; if they
tell you to look up, make sure you remember everything
about the person to whom you are talking; if they tell you
to speak with variety, practice emphasizing key words,
especially action verbs; if they tell you to speak louder,
practice with cotton in your ears. In other words, do
everything before a debate to cultivate a good delivery.

Working Knowledge ~ The more a debater
knows about a topic, both arguments and evidence, both
pro and con, the more one will be able to practice delivery
and hence become truly skilled in the communication of
arguments, evidence and analysis.

Evaluation & Judging ~ The judge is the
chairperson of the round (facilitating the coin flip and giving
time signals if requested), and may halt any crossfire lacking
civility. S/he may not interact in the crossfire.

Judges evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments
actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not
on issues they think a particular side should have covered.
Judges should assess the bearing of each argument on the
truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. The pro
should prove that the resolution is true, and the con
should prove that the resolution in not true. When
deciding the round, judges should ask, If I had no prior
beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole
have made me more likely to believe the resolution was
true or not true? Teams should strive to provide a
straightforward perspective on the resolution; judges
should discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only
serve to confuse the opposing team. Plans (formalized,
comprehensive proposals for implementation),
counterplans and kritiks (off-topic arguments) are not
allowed. Generalized, practical solutions should support a
position of advocacy.

Quality, well-explained arguments should trump a mere
quantity thereof. Debaters should use quoted evidence to
support their claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence
may strengthen but not replace arguments.

Clear communication is a major consideration. Judges
weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly
explained, and they will discount arguments that are too
fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood by
an intelligent high school student or a well-informed
citizen. A team should not be penalized for failing to
understand his or her opponents unclear arguments.

In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must
appeal to the widest possible audience through sound
reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and
clear delivery. Points provide a mechanism for evaluating
the relative quality of debating.

This guide may be freely reproduced for instructional purposes.
Revised July 2009 NFL Programs/Education Office
PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE BALLOT

Round _____ Room _________ Date ___________ Judge Name ______________________ Judge Code _________

PRO TEAM CON TEAM

Code # _______________ Team Points: _____ Code # _______________ Team Points: _____

1
st
Debater ______________________________ 1
st
Debater _______________________________

2
nd
Debater _____________________________ 2
nd
Debater _______________________________

TEAM POINTS: Outstanding = 27-30; Above Average = 25-27; Average = 22-25; Below Average = 18-22

The team that won this debate is _________________________ representing the PRO / CON (circle one).
No Low Point Wins!! (Code)

Judge Signature:_________________________________ Judges School:_______________________________

Order of debate: 1
st
Pro (4 min.), 1
st
Pro Summary (2 min.), Preparation Time: 2 minutes per team.
1
st
Con (4 min.), 1
st
Con Summary (2 min.),
Crossfire (3 min.), Grand Crossfire (3 min.), Please note in NCFL, there is NO coin flip for sides
2
nd
Pro (4 min.), 2
nd
Pro Final Focus (2 min.), or for speaker order. There is only a
2
nd
Con (4 min), 2
nd
Con Final Focus (2 min.) coin flip for sides in Round 5 and in any
Crossfire (3 min.), Elims when teams have not met before.

COMMENTS TO DEBATERS:

REASONS FOR MY DECISION:

Judging Policy Debate
Policy debate focuses on the advocacy of a plan or policy action. The affirmative team should outline the harms
in the current system or some sort of need. Then they should present a policy that would satisfy the need they
have outlined. In addition the affirmative may discuss additional advantages to the policy.
The negative team may argue that the affirmative policy fails to meet the need they have outlined (i.e. the
affirmative does not solve). The negative also has the option to present disadvantages to the policy (the policy
may solve the problem, but it will create new problems).
Other ways do exist for structuring an affirmative case or negative strategy, but in the end the debate should focus on
whether or not a particular policy is an appropriate course of
action.
Stock Issues
Often, judges view the round in terms of stock issues, or major
questions that both teams need to address. They are:
! Topicality: Does the affirmative plan meet the terms of
the resolution? Is it an example of the resolution?
! Harms: Whats the problem with the status quo?
! Significance: What is the scope of the problem with the
status quo?
! Inherency: Does the plan exist in the status quo (the way
things are now), and what structural or attitudinal barriers
exist?
! Solvency: Does the affirmative plan solve the problem?
In the traditional view, the affirmative has to successfully defend
the argument that their plan meets all five of the stock issues: it
cant exist already (inherency), it has to address an important
problem (harms and significance together), it has to fix that
important problem (solvency), and it has to be an example of
the resolution, to ensure a fair debate (topicality). If the
negative can prove that the affirmative violates any one of the stock issues for example, that the plan wont fix the
problem (solvency) then the negative wins the debate.
Disadvantages
Sometimes an affirmative plan can solve for all five of the stock issues and still be a bad idea. For example, an affirmative
plan to dissolve the entire U.S. prison system would certainly remedy the problem of excessive detention, doesnt exist in
the status quo, and very substantially decreases the governments ability to detain without charge. However, there are
still extremely good reasons not to vote for such a plan: prisoners might run rampant on the streets; people would be
less afraid to commit crimes since they would know that there were no prisons to punish them for breaking the law; lots
of prison staff would be out of employment, and so forth.
A disadvantage is a somewhat more structured way of arguing that the negative consequences of a plan provide a reason
not to vote for it. Disadvantages have several important parts:
! Uniqueness: is the disadvantage happening in the status quo? If a disadvantage argues that an affirmative plan will
cause the economy to stagnate (stop growing), then it can be proved non-unique if an affirmative effectively argues
that the economy is already stagnating and, hence, the plan wouldnt make the economy any worse than it already is.
! Link: does the plan cause the problem to happen? If a disadvantage argues that releasing detainees held at
Guantanamo Bay would cause terrorism to increase, the negative has to prove that prisoners there are involved in
terrorism and that their captivity is important to preventing terrorism.
! Impact: does the plan cause something bad to happen? If a disadvantage argues that limiting the governments ability
to conduct sneak and peek searches under Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act would impair the governments law
enforcement ability, the negative has to prove that law enforcement by the government is a good thing.
Cross-Examination
The questioner shall control the use of the time and may interrupt the respondent, but may not comment on the answers
or make any statement of his/her own views.
Timing - Timekeeping is required. If no
timekeeper is used, debaters may time for
their opponent or the judge may keep time.
First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) 8 min.
2nd Negative Cross-Examines 1AC 3 min.
First Negative Constructive (1NC) 8 min.
1st Affirmative Cross-Examines 1NC 3 min.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) 8 min.
1st Negative Cross-Examines 2AC 3 min.
Second Negative Constructive (2NC) 8 min.
2nd Affirmative Cross-Examines 2NC 3 min.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 5 min.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 5 min.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 5 min.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 5 min.
Prep time, per team 5 min.
E
a
c
h

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

d
e
b
a
t
e
r

m
u
s
t

g
i
v
e

o
n
e

a
n
d

o
n
l
y

o
n
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e

s
p
e
e
c
h
,

o
n
e

p
e
r
i
o
d

o
f

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
,

o
n
e

p
e
r
i
o
d

o
f

a
n
s
w
e
r
i
n
g
,

a
n
d

o
n
e

r
e
b
u
t
t
a
l
.

Evaluation
Judges are expected to carefully and fairly decide the outcomes of a debate. There are two outcomes for a debate. The
judge must decide the winning side of the debate. That is the team that argued successfully on the topic. If the affirmative
team proves its case, the judge should reward the affirmative team. If the affirmative team did not prove its case, the judge
should declare the negative team as the winner. There are no ties in debates. Neither can two teams win a debate or
both teams lose a debate.
In addition to deciding the winning team in the debate, a judge must award individual points to each of the four debaters.
Student are rated on a scale of 0-30 points, with 30 points awarded for a perfect performance. The judge should
consider public speaking, argumentation, and teamwork skills in assigning individual speaker points. It is possible to give
the same speaker points to more than one student. Often, judges also must rank each of the four debaters, and there
may not be a tie in rank.

A decision SHOULD NOT be based upon:
1. The merits of the resolution. The judge should not be influenced by prejudices in favor or against the
resolution.
2. Partiality. The judge should not be influenced by the reputation of, or partiality for or against, either of the
competing teams, their schools, or coaches.
3. Preconceived notions on arguments. The judge should not allow his idea of what the best affirmative
or negative arguments or cases may be to influence the decision.
4. Personal preferences on debating style. A judge should not penalize a team if its style, either in case
construction or delivery, differs from that which s/he personally prefers; but should evaluate all styles on the
basis of effectiveness in winning conviction.
A decision SHOULD BE based upon the consideration of any or all of the following questions:
1. Skill in analysis. This includes not only the analysis of the proposition, but also analysis of the debate as it
progresses.
2. Use of evidence. This includes the use of sufficient evidence and proper reference to source.
3. Validity of argument. This includes reasoning and conclusions drawn from the evidence presented.
4. Clarity of organization. This includes clear outlining of constructive arguments and easily followed
handling of refutation.
5. Effectiveness of delivery. This includes all matters pertaining to oral presentation with special emphasis
upon extemporaneous abilities.

American Forensic Association Debate Ballot
Form W
Division _________________ Round _________Room _______ Judge ________________________
Affirmative________________________________ Negative ________________________________
Check the column on each item which, on the following scale, best describes your evaluation of the
debator's
effectiveness:
1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - average 4 - excellent 5 - superior
1st Affirmative 2nd Affirmative 1st Negative 2nd Negative
__________________ __________________ __________________ __________________
(Name) (Name) (Name) (Name)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Analysis
Reasoning
Evidence
Organization
Refutation
Delivery
Total ___ Rank ___ Total ___ Rank ___ Total ___ Rank ___ Total ___ Rank ___
Rank each debater in order of excellence (1st for best, 2nd for next best, etc.)
In my opinion, this debate was won by __________________________ representing
___________________
(School and/or #)
_______________________ _______________________
(Judge's Name) (School)
HOW TO JUDGE
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

By J im Menick, New York CFL
(BCFL-Specific Adaptations are in Italics)

Judging in a nutshell

Personal prejudices of the judge on the topic are to be set aside.

The best argument wins, not the best sounding speaker -- this is a debate, not
an interpretive event.

You are the judge. The debaters job is to convince you. The activity is specifically
designed for presentation to lay audiences; if a debater is too esoteric, or
too fast, or too complicated, it is the debater who doesnt know what he or she
is doing, not the judge.

Points -- on a scale of 0-30: 29-30 (grade point A) Excellent; 27-28 (grade
point B) Good; 25-26 (grade point C) Average; 24-25 (grade point D) Improve. It
is only acceptable to give fewer points than these in instances of improper behavior
(which must be noted on the ballot).

Write constructive ballots. Give reasons for decisions based on the round ("aff's
value of justice outweighed neg's value of home-cooking" or "aff dropped the
argument about individual rights") rather than vague generalities ("aff was the
better speaker" or "neg was more persuasive.")

Heres a good way to make a decision when youre starting out. Ask yourself
after a round, If I had to do what the resolution asks in the Real World right
now, which way would I go, based on what I just heard?

Judging out of a nutshell

Since schools often need to enlist parents and friends as LD judges, we've put
together this guide to explain what LD is all about. It is not that hard to judge, and
it's not that unusual for people to do it without a lot of prior experience. In fact, in
many cases it is parents from other schools who are judging your kids. In this
brief guide we'll explain LD, discuss the mechanics of a round, explain what to do
as a judge, how to pick a winner, and how to prepare a ballot.

What is LD
Lincoln-Douglas is a one-on-one debate between two people affirming and negating
a resolution. The resolutions change roughly every two months , and the
topics are along the lines of, Which is Better, Anarchy or Tyranny? or, Is Multiculturalism
Good or Bad? or, Is the Death Penalty J ust? What the topics usually boil
down to is a conflict between the rights of one individual or group of individuals
measured against the rights of some other individual or group, or, is a certain action
right or wrong (i.e., moral). What the debaters offer in their cases is the
greatest inherent value of either the affirmative or negative; they defend that
value on their side, while attacking their opponent's value. And the thing is,
there's no objectively right answer, which makes the topics eminently arguable. In
any tournament, the debaters are required to argue both sides of the resolution;
the point is to be persuasive on either side, by acquiring and demonstrating the
skills of reasoned argument. And LD was specifically designed for lay audiences,
as a response to the more technical and hard-to-follow Policy style of debate.
The style of presentation and content is specifically defined as being analogous
to a presentation in a community meeting; there should be nothing about it beyond
the abilities of any student, or any judge.

What to do as a judge
There are three kinds of judges: coaches, parents/friends, and former debaters.
The coaches and former debaters are experienced, and they'll probably be judging
the toughest rounds of the day, which gets you off the hook. But LD also
draws a lot of less experienced judges precisely because not that much experience
is necessary, and when a school hosts a debate they usually beat the
bushes for LD judges. Any sentient adult who knows how to listen and who's willing
suspend his or her own prejudices for a half an hour can judge LD. And judge
it well.

Prior to a round, schematics will be distributed, listing the names of the
debaters, who's judging them, and where. Most LD rounds consist of two flights,
an A flight and a B flight, which simply means that each round is actually two
rounds cleverly disguised as one, but at least they're both usually in the same
room. After consulting the schematic, go to the ballot table and pick up your ballots.
Then go to the correct room, where as judge you should find the most comfortable
seat available, excluding the teacher's desk -- teachers are more territorial
than grizzly bears, and any hint of disturbance at a teacher's desk can set the
National Forensic League back a hundred years. The debaters will logically take
places where you can get a good look at them. Then everyone does a little
bookkeeping.

The debaters pre-flow, i.e., get organized (which will always make you
wonder why they waited until the last minute, especially if it's B flight and they've
been camped outside your door for the last forty-five minutes). What the judge
should do is prepare a pad to flow the coming argument. Flow? The thing is,
you've got to take notes if you really want to track what's going on, and what's
going on in debate parlance is "the flow" -- the flow of the arguments, the flow of
the debate. If possible, get someone to show you an example: there are different
ways of doing it, and youll find one right for you. Mostly its just taking notes on a
legal pad in such a way that you can align the contentions with the refutations
and compare what was said by whom.

When the debate begins, the judge usually has to time it. (NOTE: if both
debaters have timers, it is perfectly acceptable for a judge to merely keep them
honest and not give signals.) After the first minute has elapsed, raise your hand
with the correct number of fingers showing the time remaining. I is five, going
down to G as one. Then a big C to show thirty seconds, a flat hand like a shadow
duck to show fifteen seconds, countdown the last five seconds with your fingers
one at a time to a closed fist that means time up. They can complete the sentence
they're in the middle of, but that's it. Having a stopwatch of some sort is, of
course, highly desirable.

During the prep time between speeches, the judge will usually call out
each thirty seconds. Each debater usually takes prep twice; the first time it
makes sense to tell them -- and you will call this out verbally -- "30 seconds,"
"Minute used," "Minute and a half used." Their second prep, it's probably better to
count down. "Minute remaining," "Thirty seconds remaining." "Time."
Aside from timing, the judge is under no obligation to utter a word during
the round.

At BCFL tournaments, there is NO DISCLOSURE of results, and no oral critiques given
to debaters. Share your thoughts about the round by writing them on the ballot, not by
having a conversation.

As soon as the debate is over, the kids will leave the room. Write up your
ballot now, while it's still fresh in your mind. If the B flight comes into the room
while you're writing up the A flight -- and they will -- tell them to cool their heels for
two minutes. If B flight is over and people are trying to start a whole new round,
leave the room yourself and find a quiet corner to write up your ballot. Ballots
are returned to the ballot table where they'll check that all the information is
accurate, and set you free for a much needed doughnut in the judges' lounge.
NOTE: Whatever you do, you must get a decision to the ballot table as soon as
possible. If you are new to the game and feel you need extra time, go to the tab
room and ask for their advice. You could hold up an entire tournament if you keep
to yourself and run off somewhere private where no one can find you while you
struggle with ballot-writing. We need your decision, and we need it right away.
What we dont need is your reasons for the decision; they can wait.

The mechanics of LD
The debate itself is a series of speeches on both sides. In order they are:

1) The affirmative constructive (AC -- 6 minutes). First up is the affirmative
side, for a six minute speech. Often the aff will begin with a quotation or summary
statement, then perhaps some definitions of key terms in the resolution, and perhaps
an observation or two setting some boundaries to the discussion. The aff
will then usually declare the value that he or she is going to defend, and perhaps
a criterion through which to measure that value (well explain that later). Then the
aff will then go into its contentions, which are the meat of the argument: these are
usually two or three areas of analysis explaining the affirmative position detail.

2) Cross-examination by negati ve (CX -- 3 minutes). At the conclusion of the
AC, the negative debater will directly question the affirmative for three minutes.
There are no boundaries on CX, short of abusing your opponent; any question
can and will be asked. In CX, the best debaters both chisel away at the flaws in
their opponent's case and set the framework for their own case.

3) The negative constructive (NC -- 7 minutes). Next up (after a couple of
minutes preparation time) is the neg to make the opposing argument. Again, we'll
probably start with a quote or summary statement, then perhaps new definitions
if for some reason neg feels that the aff's definitions are inadequate or misleading,
followed perhaps by more observations. Then there's neg's value, which may
be the same or different from aff's. Next neg argues, as did aff, with two or three
contentions, this time against the resolution (contentions, by the way, are also
sometimes referred to as lines of analysis). When the neg is finished its contentions,
neg then goes on to refute the aff case, point by point. In other words, now
the debating begins as neg attacks affs contentions.

4) Cross-examination by the affirmative (CX -- 3 minutes). At the conclusion
of the NC, the aff debater will grill the negative, just like aff was grilled by negative
before. Same no-rules apply.

5) First affirmative rebuttal (1AR -- 4 minutes). From now on, it's all argument.
Both sides have made their cases. Now they defend their side and attack their
opponent's. The first affirmative rebuttal is a four-minute speech by aff, and it's
not much time to cover everything, but covering everything is the order of the
day. Usually aff begins by going point by point refuting the neg case, then aff defends
against the neg's previous refutations of the aff case. It can get hectic, but
it's one of the high points of the debate.

6) Negative rebuttal (NR -- 6 minutes). Neg is up again, to defend the neg case
and once again refute the aff. But neg has six minutes, plenty of time to go into
deep analysis of the issues. Usually neg will attempt to sum up or "crystallize" the
round at the conclusion of the NR, urging you to deliver a negative ballot.

7) The second affirmative rebuttal (2AR --3 minutes). To make up for the apparent
time imbalance, aff gets the last word in the 2AR. Aff usually uses the time
to summarize the round, crystallizing the key voting points and, of course, urging
an affirmative ballot.
8) Note that both sides do have an allotment of preparation time, usually a total
of four minutes, which they will usually use prior to making their rebuttal
speeches (although once in a blue moon a kid uses prep before a cx).

Speed
Debaters may occasionally speak more quickly than you are comfortable with in a
round. If a debater is speaking too quickly, it would be reasonable to call out speed! or
slow down! to alert them to this. If they choose not to abide by your request, the fault
is theirs, not yours.
What to look for in a debate round in order to pick a winner
Choosing in favor of a debater is called picking them up. Choosing against them
is called dropping them. Regardless of your abilities as a judge, debaters you
pick up will consider you an expert (provided your allotment of speaker points is
commensurate with their normal expectations -- we'll discuss speaker points
later), while the debaters you drop will suspect that their pet ferret could have
done a better job than you have. But that's to be expected. Theyd feel exactly
the same way if youd been doing this for 50 years and were the president of the
NFL.

Obviously, the person who makes the best argument wins. If the subject is
one on which you have a personal opinion (for example, the death penalty), it is
still the person who makes the best argument in that round, and not what you
happen to believe yourself. Of course, usually the resolutions are so broad that
either side could win, so you won't have to worry about your own prejudices.

Crystallization points. Often debaters wind up by offering crystallization points,
or voting issues, at the end of their last speeches. These are the aspects of their
side of the case that the debaters claim to have won. It is a good idea to use
these voting issues as your own issues when making a decision. Of course, you
may not agree that the debater won a point that he or she claims he won, and
you may rank the importance of the issues differently than the debaters, but
thats precisely why you earn the big bucks. Newer debaters dont often use
crystallization points, but more seasoned varsity debaters usually are adept at this
part of the presentation, which is very helpful to any judge, no matter how experienced.

Values. Each debater should uphold his value, if he or she has one. (NOTE:
There is no rule that a debater must have a value per se, but it would be unusual
not to). If the value is justice for both sides, for instance, which case ultimately
came across as the most just? If the values are different for the two sides, say
justice for aff and individual rights for neg, you have to measure which value applies
better to the resolution after you've heard their arguments. Which debater
convinced you that he or she best supports his or her value? If its equal, which
proved to have the higher -- more important -- value?

Criteria. If a debater establishes a criterion for a case, you should use this criterion
to measure the value. A good analogy in understanding values and criteria is
that, let's say you want to buy a car because you need transportation. Transportation
is your value. What are the criteria you use to buy the car? If you want
speed and fashionability and fun, you might opt for a sports car, while if you want
spaciousness and safety for a family you might opt for a mini-van. The end result
is still a car, and transportation, but it's a different kind of car, and your reasons --
or criteria -- for buying it are entirely different. Criteria in LD usually come into
strongest play when the values are the same for both sides. However, as with
values, there is no "rule" that a debater must have a criterion (despite what some
debaters might say to you during the round).

Style. LD debate is not an event where the style of speech comes into play, so it
is not the best orator that wins but the best debater. You do not vote for the debater
who sounds the best; it is what they say that is important. Thats why you
have to listen carefully and take notes. There has to be a clash, and someone
has to win it. Essentially, each side defends two or three contentions of his or her
own, and replies to the opponents two or three contentions. The best arguments
are the ones that you found the most logically compelling. Its as simple as that.
Some arguments might sound entirely ridiculous to you. That means that, as far
as the judge in this round is concerned, an argument is entirely ridiculous. YOU
ARE THE J UDGE. Be open to what theyre saying, but dont turn off your brain,
only your prejudices. You want to be an impartial evaluator of their debating. Who
outdebated whom?

Interventionist vs. noninterventionist judges. An interventionist judge applies
some of his or her own thinking on a topic, while a noninterventionist judge only
evaluates what is said by the debaters. This is not as simple as it sounds. If a
debater argues something that you know is wrong, but the opponent doesnt
know it, and concedes it, you would not want to intervene and give the point to
the opponent who misguidedly conceded it. Similarly, if you hear a contention
and can think of a great argument against it, but the opponent instead comes up
with a pretty lousy argument, you have to follow what was actually said rather
than what should have been said. That is simple nonintervention, and this is what
you should be trying to do.

Drops. Intervention gets more complex, and more controversial, with the issue of
drops. Were now talking about the game of debate, with rules, albeit tacit, to
conduct that game. As you go down the flow of a case, sometimes a debater will
drop an issue; that is, the first debater contends that cows have wings, and the
opposing debater never responds to it. That means that the second debater has
dropped flying cows. If the original debater stands up in the next speech and
points out the drop to the judge, I would suggest that this is a contention that
must stand for the original debater; in other words, the debater who first made
the statement wins that statement, no matter how cockamamie, if the opponent
drops it. Having a point stand in this way is just as good as proving through
argumentation that cows have wings. Anything the opponent subsequently says to
this point after dropping it is unacceptable. However, if the point is dropped and
the original debater does not cite the drop, then it just disappears as an issue
from the round. Neither debater can bring up that subject again. If either of them
do, all that discussion is wasted, because once a point has been dropped, it cannot
be revived. Thats the game of drops. Were not saying a round should be
won or lost on flying cows, but simply that this is how dropping points does work.
Sometimes, especially with novice debaters, whole cases will be dropped left and
right, and a debater will get a straightforward technical win as a result. You won't
see this much at the varsity level. The interventionist issue can be very sticky
here. Usually dropped points are good points, but what if the dropped point is indeed
that cows have wings? Use your judgment here. If the dropper made all
good arguments and dropped some small stuff, go that way. If the round is close,
and you need to evaluate on drops and extension, you just have to do it. I hate to
think that a debater can win by responding to everything that is said, without having
good arguments. Good arguments should win. That should be what debating
is all about.

One last thing about drops. The 1AR is that four-minute rebuttal by affirmative,
where everything has to be covered in a short amount of time. This is
the place where it may appear that an aff is dropping issues, but keep in mind the
reality of the time pressure. No matter how fast the aff speaks, he can't have that
much depth of analysis, and there's going to be tradeoffs in both directions. The
aff should cover the main points of the contentions, or perhaps group similar
ideas together, but when the neg has 112 bitsy little subpoints all the aff has to do
is address the meat, not every little detail.

Ad hoc voting issues. One interesting thing that might occur during a cross-
examination is that both debaters make an agreement that whoever wins this or
that specific point wins the round. This is perfectly acceptable in LD and completely
clarifies your job as a judge. You will now give the round to whomever
does best what the two debaters agreed had to be done.

Summary. In the final analysis, you are the judge and what you say goes. Sometimes
a round will be easy, when two opponents are mismatched and one clearly
takes it from the other. In closer rounds, one little dropped point may make the
difference. And in the best rounds, with equal opponents, you will simply listen to
what they both have to say and award the win to the side that convinced you better
that he or she was right. We offer this possibility for helping make a decision:
think of the resolution (banning capital punishment, spending money on X versus
Y, doing this or doing that). After youve heard the debate, if you had to immediately
take the action described by the resolution, which way would you go? If you
can clearly see a path of action as a result of what youve just heard, the person
who offered that path must needs have won the round. It wont always happen,
but if it does, go with it.

How to prepare a ballot
There are two parts to the ballot. There's picking the winner and loser and assigning
them speaker points, and there's writing up the reasons for your decisions.
Speaker points range from 20 to 30, and are used by the tabulators to
balance rounds and award trophies. When awarding points, remember, points are for
the best debating, not the greater oratorical skill. Rules of thumb: 20-21 is too stingy, so
don't; 22 is pretty much a disaster, a kid who drops a whole case, whose contentions
didn't make any sense, that sort of thing; 23-24 is when they seemed to
have the basics down but just didn't debate that well, they hemmed and hawed a
lot where they should have been refuting, they repeated themselves over and
over rather than adding new levels of analysis; 25-26 are okay but they didn't
wow you; 27-28 are from good to really good; and 29-30s are excellent (and note
that 30s are occasionally awarded, not because perfection has been reached,
but because you feel this is about as close to perfection as you'll see at this
tournament).

Another way of looking at points is 29-30 =grade point A, 27-28 =B,
25-26 =C, less than 25 is pretty bad. If you happen to judge an elimination
round, speaker points are not necessary, as only the issue of winning or losing is
important now.

If you're worried about speaker points, it is better to err on the side of generosity.
Giving a couple of extra points to a lesser debater won't hurt anybody,
and will make the lesser debater feel good. Giving undeservedly low points to a
solid debater, however, may be enough of a difference for them that day to lose a
trophy. Try to be reasonable on a 2-10 scale, but if you're unsure, especially
when you're new to this, err higher rather than lower. NOTE: Fewer points may
be given in situations where a debaters behavior in a round was improper. This
must be noted clearly on the ballot; the coach will want to know about it, and act
on it.

Writing up the reasons for your ballot is not an easy business. There are
as many different styles of ballots as there are judges. Whatever you want to say
is fine, but certainly more is better than less. In the case of newer debaters, anything
you say to both of them will help them improve in the future. But be constructive:
these are kids, after all: you want to give them tips for improvement, not
traumas that will eventually turn them into serial killers. In the case of more experienced
debaters, your decision will probably be pretty complicated and boil down
to one or two debating issues from the round. Here you might try to recapitulate
what you heard and the way you heard it, compare the arguments, and say what
it worked or didn't work because whatever. It's up to you. The biggest thing to
keep in mind is that these ballots are torn into after a debate like they're the Dead
Sea scrolls. Be fair, clear and constructive.

Glossary
Weve covered some of these terms already. Others are rare or special, but worth
knowing about if they pop up.

cross-apply Cross-applying an argument means taking an argument made
against one argument, and applying it to another argument. What I said before
about X? Apply it to Y. This allows debaters not to have to repeat the argument
and give up valuable time on it. It can also be confusing to a judge. If you get
confused by it, its the debaters fault, not yours. (And rest assured that, if youve
gotten confused by it, then the cross-application was probably erroneous.)

drop A dropped argument is an argument that one debater makes, and the other
debater does not cover

extend Extending an argument means, essentially, What I said before about
this? Apply it again.

flow Take notes during a round. Past tense: flowed

impact This is often used as a verb, to impact a statement. Impacting meets
showing the point of ones contention, usually relating back to the value/criterion

intervention J udge intervention means doing work that the debaters have not
done themselves. It is not a good way to judge. All you have is what the debaters
said. J ust go with that.

kritik A critique, known in debater circles as a kritik or K, is a case that claims
that there is an inherent flaw in the resolution, and argues not a side of the resolution
(usually the negative) but against the resolution per se, and therefore
against the opponent who implicitly accepted the flawed resolution. A performative
kritik is the literal acting out of the reasons why the resolution is flawed. In
LD, kritiks are quite controversial. They may be as clever as the day is long, but
many coaches and tournaments discourage or ban them. You will most likely only
come up against these at the highest levels of competition, or at least those contenders
who fancy themselves high level, i.e., national circuit debaters.

national circuit A small number of tournaments around the country award entry
qualifications to the annual Tournament of Champions in Kentucky. Debaters with
the funds and talent to do so travel to these tournaments, often halfway or completely
across the country, and often on a weekly basis. The tournaments with
these TOC bids are considered the national circuit. Debaters who attend these
tournaments week after week are called national-circuit, or just circuit, debaters.
And boy, do they have a high opinion of themselves!

non-unique An argument is non-unique when it could be made for either side.
Its not that its an irrelevant argument, merely that its not specific to one side of
the argument.

paradigm Debaters will often ask a judge, before a round, what their paradigm
is. This means, what exactly does the judge believe about LD that the debater
ought to know. If you do have a paradigm, that probably means youve been doing
LD for years, so feel free to offer it. If you dont have a paradigm, well, thats a
paradigm too: it says that youre a relatively new judge with a lot of intelligence
and a dedication to supporting your debate team who wants debaters to debate
in such a way that you can follow what theyre talking about. Debaters, if theyre
any good, will accept that and act accordingly.

pick up/drop To pick up a debater is to award them a win; to drop them is to
award them a loss

pre-flow Pre-flowing is what debaters do before a round. They write down their
arguments on their flow pads, so that when the debate begins, they can flow their
opponents arguments on those lines.

pull across Pulling across an argument is what you do when an argument was
dropped. That is, one debater makes an argument, and the second debater
doesnt respond. The first debater then asks you to pull across his original argument.
The first debater should also impact the argument at this point; that is,
show you why its important and why it shouldnt have been dropped.

schematics The sheets issued by the tabroom showing who is debating whom,
who is judging, and where.
standard(s) This is usually referred to as the standard for the round, and is
really just another way of talking about values/criteria. The standard is the way
we can determine which side wins; if the standard for the round is, say, individual
rights protection, the side that protects the most individual rights, wins. Often
there is an argument which sides standard to use, as there may be an argument
which sides criterion/value to use. It is up to the judge to make this determination.
Go the way that makes the most sense to you, if the sides cannot agree on
a standard.

turn To turn an argument means to take an argument made against you, and
turn it against the other debater. This is a rather complicated and rare occurrence,
but you will often find debaters claiming they are turning everything that
isnt nailed. Not so. A turn is rare, and should be rather startling. If it is successful,
it not only renders the argument moot against the turner, but allows the turner to
claim the argument as his or her own. Powerful stuff. Thats why its rare, and
why people are always claiming that theyre doing it.

value/criterion The value is the reason youre making an argument: Im going
affirmative because I believe it is more just/moral/whatever. The just/moral/
whatever is the value. Ill show that it is more just/moral/ whatever through this
process or weighing mechanism. The process of weighing mechanism is the criterion.
For example: My value is justice; my criterion is access to information.
The case will show how this side gets more access to information, and the debater
will also show how this access leads to justice.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Ballot

Round ______ Room ________ Date _____________ Judges Name _____________________ Judges Code ______

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

School / Code:____________________________________ School / Code:__________________________________

Name: _________________________ Points (0-30) _____ Name: _______________________ Points (0-30) _____

The Winning Debater was _________________________________________________ Upholding the [AFF] [NEG].

The points you award must correlate with your decision. Remember, this is debate and not related individual oration. No Low Point Wins!

Judges Signature _________________________________________ Judges School ___________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Limits for Lincoln-Douglas Debate are as follows: Affirmative Constructive 6 minutes Speaker Point Scale:
Cross Examination by Negative 3 Outstanding = 26 - 30
Each Debater shall have up to 4 minutes Negative Constructive 7 Good = 21 - 25
of Preparation Time to use throughout Cross Examination by Affirmative 3 Fair = 18 - 20
the Round at their discretion. First Affirmative Rebuttal 4 Below Average = 15 - 17
Negative Rebuttal 6 Scores less than 15 are to be
Second Affirmative Rebuttal 3 used for unacceptable conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS for DECISION

Bcfljudgemanual 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bcfljudgemanual 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011-2012

BCFL JUDGING GUIDE

You might also like