Judging Debates

Maja Cimerman
 Speaker

Proposition Opposition

1st speaker 1st speaker

2nd speaker 2nd speaker

3rd speaker 3rd speaker

Reply Reply

Adjudicators

Debate Layout
 PROP
• Defines the topic (explains the
1 PROP problem behind
it/contextualizes the debate)
• Outlines a solution to the
problem
• Explains the case division (who
will present what arguments)
and theme
• Presents own arguments
• Provides a summary of their
speech
• Rebuts 1st Opp’s arguments
2PROP • Reiterates and defends his first 2 OPP
speaker’s arguments
• Presents their own argument
• Provides a summary of their
speech
• Rebuts substantially
3PROP • Reiterates and defends their
own team's case
• Provides a summary of their
speech
REPLY
Presents a comparative overview
of the clash points in the debate
proving why their team’s case
stands
Speaker Roles
OPP
• Responds to the definition
1 OPP (i.e. accepts, rejects or
clarifies)
• Responds to the solution
• Gives the case division and
theme of their own team
• Rebuts the 1st Prop’s
arguments
• Presents own arguments
• Provides a summary of their
speech
• Rebuts 2nd Prop’s arguments
• Reiterates and defends their
first speaker’s arguments
• Presents their own argument
• Provides a summary of their
speech
• Rebuts substantially
3 OPP • Reiterates and defends their
own team's case
• Provides a summary of their
speech
REPLY
Presents a comparative overview
of the clash points in the debate
proving why their team’s case
stands
Judging Criteria
 1. Content (40):
What teams present (i.e. definition, arguments, rebuttals – logical?
Relevant? etc.)
!
2. Style (40):
How they present (Overall effectiveness of presentation: volume,
clarity, body language, humour, etc.)

3. Strategy (20):
Organisation/ structure of individual speeches and the teams’
case
Style
✤ Debate is not a language
competition!
✤ Style is subjective so try to
adjudicate manner according to
whether an average person will
find a particular speaker’s
manner attractive.
Strategy
✤ Team Strategy: !
Consistent team line!
Reinforcement of team members'
arguments!
Responsive !
Ability to progress the case!
✤ Individual Strategy!
A well structured speech!
Proper prioritisation of
arguments!
Good time management
01
Content: Argumentation

What makes a good argument?

!
a) Sounds good
Language and rhetoric don’t compensate for substance
b) Kind of logical
Assess the strength of the argument without entering
into the debate
c) Relevant
Assess the argument in context
d) Smart idea
Depth and analysis
e) In line with my opinion
Tabula Rassa
 THW ban cosmetic surgery

Because people regret it and then they won’t like their new nose any more.
!
!
People feel like they have to do it because everyone else is doing it too - not
because they want it done. Afterwards they will regret it but they won’t be able
to change it back. For example a lot of young teenagers will get plastic surgery
done before they grow up and they later regret it when they are adults.
!
!
The decision making process was ‘invalid’ as the majority of people do this because
of pressure from society to conform to what society sees as being beautiful. This
pressure most effects those members of our society that feel the most vulnerable
or insecure about how other people see them (like young people or public
figures).
It would be immoral to allow a practice that takes abuses the pressure that we put
on the least secure in our society. When we are discussing something as
irreversible as surgery that can have long term physical an psychological harms for
people then if we can not be certain that it was indeed the free choice of the
individual we must ban it.
Content: Refutation

How do you know an argument has been refuted successfully?

!
a) Sufficiently outraged
Humour/Dismissiveness don’t compensate for substance
b) Opp said they refuted it
Really? Which part?
c) Smart response
Rhetorical questions? Depth and analysis
 THW ban cosmetic surgery (refutation)

People don’t regret it.

!
A lot of people feel happier after having surgery because the type of people that have it
are those that are unhappy with a part of their body and not just people randomly
deciding to have surgery. Before you have surgery you have to talk it over with a doctor
to make sure you understand the consequences.
!
Just because some people may be subtly coerced by society into having surgery, this
does not mean that we should ban all cosmetic surgery. This just means that the
discussions doctors have with their patients before surgery need to be more thorough.
Even those that were somehow coerced into surgery will reap the rewards of having had
it done. They will become more accepted in society if they are conforming to its
standards of beauty and will achieve the status that they wanted. This pursuit of
happiness is a legitimate goal for an individual to pursue which is why the government
should not ban it on the basis of a minority being possibly coerced.
Judging Content

What are the main issues in a debate?

a) Most talked about in debate?
b) Arguments that prove or disprove case
!
!
!
How do you identify main issues in a debate?
a) Debaters do it for you
b) With no clash – you track and evaluate arguments and
engagement
 THW ban cosmetic surgery

PROP
The decision making process was ‘invalid’ as the majority of people do this because of pressure from society
to conform to what society sees as being beautiful. This pressure most effects those members of our
society that feel the most vulnerable or insecure about how other people see them (like young people or
public figures).
It would be immoral to allow a practice that takes abuses the pressure that we put on the least secure in
our society. When we are discussing something as irreversible as surgery that can have long term physical
an psychological harms for people then if we can not be certain that it was indeed the free choice of the
individual we must ban it.
!
vs
!
OPP
Just because some people may be subtly coerced by society into having surgery, this does not mean that we
should ban all cosmetic surgery. This just means that the discussions doctors have with their patients before
surgery need to be more thorough. Even those that were somehow coerced into surgery will reap the
rewards of having had it done. They will become more accepted in society if they are conforming to its
standards of beauty and will achieve the status that they wanted. This pursuit of happiness is a legitimate
goal for an individual to pursue which is why the government should not ban it on the basis of a minority
being possibly coerced.
You are judging a debate on the motion:

“This House Believes schools should aggressively stream students according to

their ability from a young age”.
!
Which speaker made a better argument?
!
Speaker 1: “Little kids behave like you expect them to. The kids who you stream to
bad classes will start doing badly. This is really dangerous because we’re really bad
at telling which kids could do great in the future, so we’re actually closing the
chances for many kids for no reason again and again and again. This is unfair, and it’s
bad for the kids and for the improvement of the economy, please oppose”.
!
Speaker 2: “This policy is particularly pernicious when dealing with young children.
Recognize that the inherent impressionability of these youth causes them to
internalize the discourse around them. Note that we are exceptionally inaccurate in
predicting academic success in the future. Hence the proposition offers to
systematically and arbitrarily discriminate countless innocent children, effectively
eroding their chances at success. It robs children of their right to equality, it is
detrimental to our children, and it endangers our economy as a whole – it is our
moral imperative to prevent this”
YOU SHOULD ALWAYS JUDGE COMPARATIVELY!

!
You need to determine what were the deciding issues in the debate (clashed) and
who won each of those.
!
!
What NOT to do
!
‘Check list’ marking
Have preconceived ideas on the motion
Read into the debate
Have a debate about the debate during panel discussion
Give “low point wins” i.e. the team that finishes first must get more speaker marks
than the team in second and so on
Oral Feedback
• Opening Remarks
• Encourage
• Overall quality of the debate
• Announce the Result
• Who won the debate?
• Identify Deciding Issues
• What were the most contentious issues?
• Discuss Relative Merits
• Compare and contrast style, content & strategy of both teams
• Be Constructive
• Draw constructive feedback from the panel
• Sandwich criticism between compliments
• What more could be done?
• Dos’ & Don'ts for next debate?
• Closing Remarks
• Best of Luck !
• Can be approached for further individual feedback
• Keep it Short!
• Shouldn’t exceed 10 minutes