Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy

ing Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The QatarDebate style

Origin of the QatarDebate style

A DJUDICATING D EBATING IN Q ATAR

The QatarDebate style is based closely on the style of the
World Schools Debating Championships.

The World Schools Debating Championships have run since

1988, and now involve more than 30 teams every year.

In February 2010, Qatar will host the World Schools Debating

Championships.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The QatarDebate style

What is debating? Debate format in the QatarDebate style

There are two teams of three speakers each.

There is a Proposition Team, which must agree with the

A debate is a formal argument between two teams on a
motion, and an Opposition Team, which must disagree.
controversial motion, often before an audience.
Speakers speak for five minutes each, alternating between
The two teams do not choose their side of the motion.
Proposition and Opposition.
A team may not agree with its side of the motion, but it must
still argue for that side. After the 3rd Opposition speech, there are two ‘summary
speeches’, each of three minutes. Each team can choose its
Debating is competitive: every debate has a winning team.
first or second speaker to give the summary speech.

The Opposition summary speech comes before the

Proposition summary speech.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The QatarDebate style The QatarDebate style

The typical layout of a debate Roles of the speakers: The First Proposition
Chairperson

P ROPOSITION O PPOSITION
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
The First Proposition speaker must:
Speaking area Define the motion.
Outline his or her arguments and the arguments of the
Second Proposition.
Present arguments (e.g. two or three arguments).
Audience

Adjudicator(s)

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The QatarDebate style The QatarDebate style

A ‘zig-zag’ format Roles of the speakers: The First Opposition

Debates in the QatarDebate style run like this. . .

P ROPOSITION O PPOSITION
The First Opposition speaker must:
1st Proposition −→ 1st Opposition Respond to the First Proposition (‘rebuttal’).
←− Outline his or her arguments and the arguments of the
2nd Proposition −→ 2nd Opposition Second Opposition.
←− Present arguments (e.g. two or three arguments).
3rd Proposition −→ 3rd Opposition
↓
Proposition Summary ←− Opposition Summary

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The QatarDebate style The QatarDebate style

Roles of the speakers: Roles of the speakers: Summary speeches

The Second Proposition and Second Opposition

A summary speaker must:

The Second Proposition and Second Opposition Summarise the main issues of the debate:
speakers must: What were the main issues?
Respond to the preceding speaker (‘rebuttal’). How did each team deal with those issues?
Outline his or her arguments. Recap his or her own team’s arguments:
Present arguments (e.g. two or three arguments). First speaker’s arguments;
Second speaker’s arguments.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The QatarDebate style

Roles of the speakers: The role of the adjudicator

The Third Proposition and Third Opposition
The adjudicator decides which team wins the debate.

This is not the same as deciding which side of the motion the
The Third Proposition and Third Opposition adjudicator agrees with. It is irrelevant whether the adjudicator
speakers must: personally agrees or disagrees with the proposal.
Respond to arguments from all the speakers on the other
team (‘rebuttal’).
Example
Relate the main issues of the debate back to his or her
The motion may be ‘THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS QUOTAS FOR
own team’s case.
WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT ’. The adjudicator may personally
disagree with this proposal. However, if the proposition team
debates more effectively, the proposition team must win.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Deciding the winner How should an adjudicator combine the categories?

In the QatarDebate style, adjudicators must combine content,

The adjudicator must judge the debate rationally.
style and strategy by assigning scores.
Different adjudicators may disagree about the result of a
(We discuss the marking range later.)
debate. This is no problem. But every adjudicator must have
sensible, logical reasons for his or her opinion. A speaker’s total score is the sum of the category scores:
Example The speaker’s score for style
It is legitimate to award higher marks because a speech has + The speaker’s score for content
more logical arguments. + The speaker’s score for strategy

It is not legitimate to award higher marks because a speaker is

= The speaker’s total score
well dressed.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

There are three criteria for adjudicating. . . How should an adjudicator combine speaker scores?

Style The way that the speaker presents

The team’s total score is the sum of the speaker scores.
Content The material that the speaker presents
Content could — in theory — be adjudicated simply The score for the first speech
by reading the text of a speech. + The score for the second speech
(We would never actually do this, of course!) + The score for the third speech
+ The score for the summary speech
Strategy The organisation of a speech
This includes: = The team’s total score
– Timing
– Recognising the key issues
– Teamwork

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The team with the highest total marks wins the debate Adjudicating requires weighing different factors

In the QatarDebate style — as with the World Schools Debating In the QatarDebate style, there is no such thing as an
Championships style — the team that wins is always the team ‘automatic loss’.
that scores the highest total marks wins the debate.
There is no one thing that can, by itself, win or lose a debate.
There are no exceptions to this rule. Instead, the adjudicator must always weigh a wide variety of
relevant factors.
However, an adjudicator should never say, Example
‘I thought one team won, but when I added my
In some styles of debating, a team will lose if it does not rebut
marks, I realised that they had lost’.
every one of its opposition’s arguments. In the QatarDebate
If this is the case, the adjudicator must adjust the marks. style, a team should rebut all of the opposition arguments, but
a team will not automatically lose if it does not.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

The adjudicator’s opinion and the speaker’s scores Audience participation

The scores should reflect the adjudicator’s conclusions on
many different aspects of the debate. The audience never participates during the debaters’
Between the teams, the team with the higher total wins. speeches. For examples, audience members may not
Between different speakers, the speakers who give offer Points of Information.
better speeches should get higher marks.
However, the QatarDebate style does encourage ‘floor
Within each speech, the marks for style, content and speeches’ after the Third Opposition speech.
strategy should reflect the adjudicator’s assessment of
these areas. This is an important way of involving the audience and
encouraging debaters. However, audience participation
Example must never affect the adjudicator’s decision in any way.
Suppose the 1st Proposition speaker has better content than
the 3rd Opposition, but that the 3rd Opposition has better style. The adjudicator only judges the debaters.
Then the speakers’ content and style marks should reflect this.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Overview of style Overview of style

What is style? An overall assessment

Style is about how well a speaker communicates.

As with content and strategy, style must be judged by an
That is, leaving aside content and strategy, adjudicator’s overall assessment.

how engaging and persuasive is the speaker? An adjudicator may sometimes be guided by considering:
Visual style
There is no one ideal style. Different speakers will achieve Verbal style.
effective style in different ways.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Overview of style Visual style

Style and English fluency Some elements of visual style

Visual style may include:

Style is not the same as fluency in English: Eye contact,
Fluent speakers often do not present in a persuasive style; Hand gestures,
Speakers with English as a second language often present Movement, etc.
very persuasively, even if they may stumble occasionally.
These things have to be weighed in an overall assessment.
Judges should not directly penalise speakers for weaker
English; however, nor should they compensate for it. Example
Many effective speakers gesture very enthusiastically. But
Fluency in English is merely one part of the overall many effective speakers hardly gesture at all. A judge should
assessment of style. consider gesture, but there is no single, simple rule about
what is best.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Verbal style

Some elements of verbal style Some elements of content

Verbal style may include: A speaker with strong content will present arguments and
Pace, rebuttal that are:
Intonation, Logical,
Volume, Well explained,
Variation in style, etc. Supported by examples, statistics, etc.

Example
These things have to be weighed in an overall assessment.
Suppose a speaker presents a logical argument, which is clear
Example and explained well. But suppose the argument has no
Many effective speakers speak in a loud and ‘assertive’ style. supporting evidence. The adjudicator should reward the
But many effective speakers use a more reserved and speaker for being logical and clear, but penalise the speaker
‘analytical’ style. A judge should consider volume, but there is for the lack of supporting evidence. As always, the adjudicator
no single, simple rule about what is best. must weigh the overall effect.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

What is content? Effective use of examples

Examples that are often effective are:

Real,
Content concerns the strength of a speaker’s arguments. Significant and
This is not the same as whether the adjudicator personally Carefully analysed.
agrees with the argument.
Examples that are rarely effective are:
Content covers both a speaker’s own arguments and rebuttal Hypotheticals (‘Imagine if. . . ’),
of the opposition’s arguments.
Personal anecdotes (‘My friend told me...’),
Extremes (‘As Hitler showed. . . ’), or
Religious texts.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Judging weak arguments Identifying important issues

Identification of important issues can include:

A weak argument is a weak argument even if the other team
Choice of issues as part of a team’s own case,
does not effectively rebut it.
Effective choice of issues for rebuttal,
Example Effective comparison of arguments in summary.
An adjudicator should never say,
‘This argument was weak, but I rewarded it Example
because it was not adequately rebutted.’ Suppose a speaker has two arguments to rebut: a minor, weak
argument and an important, strong argument. The speaker
A weak argument should be penalised. If the other team may spend lots of time attacking the weak argument and little
effectively rebuts it, that team should be further rewarded. time on the strong argument. However, this would be poor
strategy: the speaker should spend more time on the
argument that is more important.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

What is strategy? Consistency between arguments

Arguments must be consistent:

Speakers should not contradict their own arguments;
Speakers should not contradict their teammates’
Strategy concerns arguments.
Identification of important issues in the debate, Further, every speaker must argue the case directly.
Effective use of time, Example
Consistency between arguments and between speeches. Suppose a team is arguing for sanctions against China. . .
1st: ‘China has a bad human rights record.’
2nd: ‘Sanctions are an effective response.’

This is poor team strategy (a ‘hung case’): the first speaker

did not directly support the case!

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

What are Points of Information? Allocating scores: General principles

Points of Information are brief interjections (questions or
comments) during an opponent’s speech. There should be variation between scores: within a speaker’s
speech and between different speakers.
The purpose of a Point of Information is to require speakers to
respond to objections against their arguments during their Speakers should be judged relative to what is a reasonable
speech. They make a debate more interactive and, hopefully, expectation for a speech at the particular level of the debate.
more interesting. Example
They cannot happen in the first or last minute of a speech, In many countries, a speech that is ‘excellent’ at a National
nor in the summary speeches. Schools Championships may only be considered ‘average’ at
the World Schools Championships. The speech would — quite
A speaker may accept or decline an point that is offered. rightly — be marked more highly at the National Schools
Each speaker should offer 2–4 points per speech; Championships.
Each speaker should accept 1–2 points.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Marking Points of Information The marking guide

In the QatarDebate style, Points of Information are not marked

separately from other categories. In the QatarDebate format, adjudicators award a mark out of
10 for each of style, content and strategy. This gives a total
They should contribute to an adjudicator’s overall mark out of 30.
assessments of a speaker’s style, content and strategy.
The mark out of 10 can be considered like this:
Additionally, it is poor strategy to:
9 Excellent
Offer too few points,
8 Good
Offer too many points, 7 Satisfactory
Accept too few points, 6 Poor
Accept too many points. 5 Lowest mark available
This should be penalised in strategy.
(There may also be implications for content. . . )

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

More on allocating scores Feedback: General principles

The most important purpose of feedback is to explain the

Summary speeches are marked on half the scale. Style, reasons for the result. Adjudicators should be clear and
content and strategy each receive a mark out of 5, so that the specific about this.
total mark is out of 15.
Example
Adjudicators may award half marks (for example, a mark of 7.5 Adjudicators should avoid very general comments; they are
for style). No other fractions are allowed! usually not helpful. For example, ‘I just didn’t really
like this argument...’ or ‘Your style just wasn’t
The absolute minimum score for a speech is 15. very persuasive...’.
The absolute maximum score for a speech is 30.
Adjudicators may never go above or below this range! The other important purpose of feedback is to help and
encourage debaters to improve. Adjudicators should give
both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ feedback, and should make all
feedback constructive.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Judging with multiple adjudicators One possible format for presenting the result. . .

Sometimes there is more than one adjudicator.

In this case, in the QatarDebate style, Briefly introduce all the adjudicators;
Each adjudicator still adjudicates the debate separately; Briefly outline style, content and strategy;
The result is by majority vote. Briefly compare the teams’ style,
Briefly compare the teams’ content,
Example
Briefly compare the teams’ strategy,
Suppose there are three adjudicators. Suppose two
adjudicators each award the debate to the Proposition by one Conclude and announce the result,
mark. Suppose the other adjudicator awards the debate to the Invite teams to receive individual feedback separately.
Opposition by ten marks. Then the Proposition wins the
debate: it is ‘a majority decision of two to one’.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Some guiding principles

A DJUDICATING D EBATING IN Q ATAR
Adjudicators must be active judges of the debate, not mere
passive observers:
There are no automatic results;
Arguments are weak or strong regardless of whether they
are effectively rebutted;
Adjudication always requires weighing of many factors.

There is no ‘true winner’ of a debate: adjudicators may

legitimately disagree. If an adjudicator is impartial and follows
the QatarDebate style, his or her decision will be valid.

Slides prepared by Ryan Goss, Tessa Khan, Simon Quinn & Lewis Turner, March 2009.
Slides prepared in LATEX 2ε (Beamer package); Simon can provide the code to anyone on request.

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators

Debating Adjudicating Style Content Strategy Points of Information Scores Feedback Conclusions

Online resources

Qatar Debate:

www.qatardebate.org

World Schools Debating Championships

(including adjudicating guide):

www.schoolsdebate.com

Free guide book:

www.learndebating.com

QatarDebate Guide for Adjudicators