INTRODUCTION

"Welcome to the official Judge Manual for Nepal Australs 2021.

This manual will of course serve as the source material for judges to become
acquainted with the format and basics of Australs debating especially in
anticipation of the tournament, but the Adjudication Core of Nepal Australs
2021 hopes this document also serves as one of the guiding documents for
judges in the Australasian community and beyond - to refer to whenever any
questions and/or misconceptions pertaining to judging arise.
WINNER

WINNER
In addition to our own explanations and elaboration in this manual which we
have incorporated to ease judges' understanding of judging methods and
philosophies, the members of the Adjudication Core were also mindful to
include, and remain cognizant of judging norms and rules from other formats
which would universally apply to the assessment of arguments and debates.

It is our intention that this manual helps judges improve their understanding of
all the elements which make up excellent judging, so that the circuit benefits in
the long run from that very development. That said, we also want to recognise
that judging, even with all its rules and norms, may involve the exercise of
discretion depending on each individual debate. Judges are therefore reminded
that there is no one single definition of the perfect judge, but that a strong judge
is meant to stay consistent with what is found in this manual.

This Judge Manual will contain 4 main parts, and all judges attending Nepal
Australs 2021 are required to go through this manual, before the start of the
tournament. Judges are also highly encouraged to use this manual as reference
when completing the Nepal Australs 2021 Judge Test."

- Nepal Australs 2021 CAP

BANUN, WASIF, DANIEL, GRACE, NICOLAS, ROBERT, UPHIE
Table of
Contents
Part I: The Basics Part II: Fundamentals
1 The Australs Format 16 The Informed Global Citizen
2 Motions: Noting Preferences and Ranking 17 What To Do With That Squirrel
3 Technical Conduct for Judges at Australs '21 18 Weighing Arguments & Responses
4 Motions: Types & Burdens 21 Facts, Assertions & Contradictions

13 Scales: Scoring Speakers & Judges 24 Assessing Thirds & Replies

27 The Fair Assessment of Style

Part III: Duties Part IV: Reminders

31 Dealing With Disputes 40 Know Your Potential Biases

33 What Is & Isn't Interventionist 41 What Shouldn't Affect Your Decision

34 Confirming Your Ballot 42 Note Taking Tips

35 Managing Panel Discussions 43 The Silent Round

36 What If: Equity Violations & Cheating 44 Managing Technical Difficulties

37 Do's and Don'ts of OA 45 Dealing With Unhappy Teams

38 Feedback to Teams 46 Scoring Your Fellow Judges

47 The Judge Breaks

 1

Part I: The Basics

THE AUSTRALS FORMAT

This specific portion of the manual introduces judges

to the format of Australasian Intervarsity Debating
Championship. Judges, especially ones who are new are
encouraged to familiarise themselves with the format
before they proceed to the other portions of this
manual.

2 Teams: Affirmative & Negative

The Australs format consists of two teams; the Affirmative team who will
support the motion, and the Negative team who will oppose the motion. The
teams consist of three speakers each.

Speeches
Each substantive speech is 8 mins
Reply speeches are 4 mins
All speeches are "uninterrupted",
i.e. no POIs are allowed

Sequence 1A 1N
The first speaker of the Affirming
team speaks first, followed by the 2A 2N NR AR
first speaker of the Negating team.
This alternating pattern from
3A 3N
affirmative to negative continues
until the third negative speaker has
spoken.
After this point, the speaking order Reply Speaker
reverses and the negative reply
speaker gives a four minute reply The reply speaker can only ever be
speech, followed by the affirmative either the first or second substantive
reply speaker. speaker.
 2

Part I: The Basics

NOTING MOTION
PREFERENCES & RANKING

While motion ranking is not something judges will be

doing, judges must understanding what each ranking
means - so as to avoid any confusion for either the
speakers or judges themselves.

Motion Preferences & Selection

Motion selection between teams will be done on Zoom. Teams must share their
preferences at the same time, which means they must do a countdown before
declaring their rankings - if a team does not do a countdown, it will be against
the rules. Judges must observe the process of motion selection, without
intervening in any discussion. While the tournament will not impose a strict
time limit for motion selection, judges must kindly prompt the teams to select
their motion upon reaching the 5th minute of preparation time.

Rankings Coin Toss

Teams have three motions to
choose from each round. Teams
must rank the motions from 1 to 3,
with 1 being their first choice and 3
being a veto choice.
Teams will not debate the motion
they veto.
If teams veto different motions,
it stands to be straightforward
that the remaining motion is
debated.
If teams have the exact same
ranking for all three motions,
then it stands to be the case that
they will debate their same first

Judges On Deck
choice.
If teams veto the same motion,
but have different preferences
Nepal Australs 2021 will enforce a
for the remaining two motions,
system where judges must be in their
they must do a coin toss to
respective breakout rooms after the
decide which of the remaining
draw is released, but before motions can
two motions will be debated.
be released. Judges must therefore be in
Judges must be present during
the room to supervise motion
this time, and should ideally
confirmation, and report to the CAP
help with an online coin toss if
immediately if there are any issues -
they cannot do it themselves.
which include missing teams and/or
judges.
 3

Part I: The Basics

TECHNICAL CONDUCT FOR JUDGES

Judges are expected to follow certain technical

procedures before and during the debate and therefore
must closely follow the guidelines mentioned in this
section.

The Beginning of The Round

After 30 mins of preparation time have lapsed, Chairs are expected to ask for a
verbal confirmation from both teams, and then the judges to indicate that they
are present on Zoom. To commence a debate round, the chair judge introduces
themselves, followed by their panelists (if any). After this, the chair judge asks
the teams to introduce themselves by mentioning their speaking order. The
chair judge may encourage everybody in the debate to share with the room
their preferred gender pronouns, but should mention that it is not mandatory
to do so. All judges must take note of the speaking order of the teams carefully.

Timing Timing Replies

Substantive
Speeches
Judges must time speakers, using their
own preferred medium - for example
using a stopwatch on their phones or
on their computers. The norm is one
clap/ring/timestamp at 6 minutes, two
at 8 minutes, and three at 8 minutes
and 15 seconds. Judges must not take
any notes on a speech or credit any
material delivered after 8 minutes and
15 seconds.
During reply speeches, judges
should clap/ring/timestamp once at
3 minutes and twice at 4 minutes,
then three times at 4 minutes and 15
seconds. Judges must not credit a
reply speech for any material given
after 4 minutes and 15 seconds.
Optional
Speakers may choose to time
themselves. Judges won't have to
share their screen for time, but
shoul at least be able to post
timestamps in the Zoom chat. There
is no need to mention the duration
(i.e. how long a speaker has spoken)
at the end of a speech.
 4

Part I: The Basics

MOTIONS: TYPES & BURDENS
It is just as important for judges - as it is for speakers to
understand the different types of motions which could be
released at the tournament. Judges should pay close
attention to the different types of motions and the
burdens the motions may impose, so that credit can be
accordingly apportioned to teams for their arguments
and responses.

Policy Motions (That we would X)

In policy motions, Afirmative must provide a model for how they will go about
implementing the policy. 'We' in the motion refers to the parliament of a state -
and teams take on the role of the relevant policy makers and debate whether or
not to enact the policy.

Affirmative Model
The Affirmative team sets the Anomalous
Examples
parameters of the debate, but are only
allowed to set the debate according to
the level of generality allowed for the
The affirming team is allowed to
motion. This means that unless
exclude any anomalous examples,
otherwise specified in the motion, the
as long as their model is still
debate operates within the current
consistent with a reasonable
world and time, along with existing
understanding of the motion (often
norms and societies.
referred to as the spirit of the
Affirmative's definitions and model
motion). Their model can thus
can only be successfully challenged
exclude anomalous examples such
and disputed if the Negative team
ss extreme situations. For instance,
convinces you that the Affirmative's
a ban on plastic surgery can have
definitions and model are
an exemption for burn victims.
unreasonable. This plays out
However, they cannot be overly
differently in different motions. For
restrictive (e.g. model a ban on
instance, if Affirmative tries to set a
plastic surgery that only includes a
debate only in wealthy countries
ban on plastic surgery for children).
without any justification in the
Overly restrictive models are a
motion, Negative can point out that it
failure to fulfil the team’s burden.
is an unreasonable definition, and the
judge will then have to assess the
debate across all the applicable
contexts.
 5

Part I: The Basics

CONTINUATION, POLICY MOTIONS

Discussed here are the exclusivity of each side's models

and what is expected of Negative teams when setting up
their definitions and models.

Exclusivity of The Policy

An affirming team is allowed to identify further policy changes that they
would also support in addition to what is required of them in the existing
motion, but the negating team is welcome to adopt any part of the
affirming team's model that is not inconsistent with their side of the
motion as well. This will ordinarily make that material irrelevant to the
debate, as the negating team can claim that benefit just as much as the
affirming team. For example, in a motion which requires Affirmative to
legalise the buying and selling of babies, Affirmative also claims they
support the buying and selling of other creatures. Negative team can
concede to the latter, without conceding to the former, and they would
still be acting within their duties of opposing the motion. Unless
Affirmative is able to prove how additional changes are exclusive to their
side, Negative can also claim them.

Negative's Exceptional Cases

In the same way Affirmative team isn't allowed to be overly restrictive and
make a debate only about exceptional or extreme cases, Negative team also
cannot defend only exceptional cases.

For example, Negative should not oppose a ban on plastic surgery by taking a
stance that plastic surgery needs to be allowed only for highly-urgent medical
cases. The Negative team is expected to debate to the level of generality
described by the motion as well, and in this context speak on the benefits of
plastic surgery for anyone involved - not just for those requiring it for
extremely medically necessary reasons.
 6

Part I: The Basics

TYPES OF MOTIONS: SHOULD DEBATES
The common belief is that "Should" motions are always
exclusively either analysis debates or value judgment
debates; requiring only the evaluation of the truth and
falseness of a particular statement along with relevant
benefits and harms. This is however, a common
misconception. In truth, while worded differently -
"Should" motions in effect are policy motions more often
than not.

Policy Motions (That X should Y)

"Should" motions may also be in effect policy motions which require teams
to establish models for how they would go about enacting their policy. This
is because just as the question in "Should" debates revolves around
whether or not a subject; be they a state, a politician or an organisation
should perform an act assuming they would have the feasibility to do so -
so too is the question in policy debates which are worded as "Would"
motions. Another reason why they are both types of motions which require
a model is due to the fact that in both types of motions - the perfomance of
an act and/or policy require(s) the additional description of measures to be
undertaken by the specified subject in the motion, in pursuit of the policy.
For example, a motion which states "That the US should place sanctions on
Saudi Arabia" expects Affirmative to not only state the reasons for said
sanctions but also the types of sanctions which would be placed and
further measures which would follow suit if any.

Point of View
All "Should" motions analyse the merits
of the policy from a neutral, independent
third party's perspective. This is different
from an "Actor" motion and must take
into account the objective harms and
benefits which arise for other
stakeholders as a result of the policy, and
not just the subjective harms and
benefits applicable to only the subject
specified in the motion.
Not A Policy?
In motions such as "That
religious leaders should preach
openness" or, "That women
should marry for money instead
of for love" - the acts performed
are less (in technical terms) a
policy than one which requires a
sanction be placed by a nation.
However, these motions still
expect Affirmative teams to
describe the extent of those
viewpoints taken by the actors (a
model).
 7

Part I: The Basics

CONTINUATION: MODELS

Models provided by the Affirmative and Negative team

need to be mutually exclusive from each other, and if not
wholly mutually exclusive should always be in tension
with each other - to the degree that their respective
models cannot coexist as they are, at the same time.
Judges should be critical in assessing the weight of each
team's case and how they weigh up against each other.

Counter Props/Counter Models

Negative team can choose to provide a counter-model if they want to.
Counter-models must be mutually exclusive. This means that it is
impossible to implement both models at the same time. For example, if the
motion is “That we would abolish th,e Olympics”. In this motion
Affirmative cannot abolish the Olympics and suggest to reform them at the
same time. This would mean that the negating team could counter-model a
series of reforms for the Olympics instead of its abolishment. Crucially,
Negative does not have to provide an explicit counter policy/model to
combat the Affirmative team's model. Negative may choose to stick with
status quo and the existing structures instead of counter-modelling a new
policy.

Alternatives
Sometimes Negative may wish to
propose an alternative which is not
entirely mutually exclusive. For example,
they may wish to propose a different way
of reforming the Olympics to that of the
Affirmative team, where both reforms
could logically occur at the same time.
Problems
Affirmative teams do not have the
absolute burden to solve all the
problems related to the context of
the motion. It is sufficient for
them to prove either some
problems are significantly reduced
or that certain significant
problems go away. Similarly,
Negative do not automatically
have a burden assigned to them to
fix the problem(s) in the topic. It is
sufficient for them to prove
Affirmative's policy is more
harmful.
 8

Part I: The Basics

CONTINUATION: ALTERNATIVES & FIATS

A debate operates with a certain level of fiat

(presumption) for teams. This section explains how that
works. Additionally, debates do not need Negative team
to provide a model or policy, they have certain
alternative strategies at their disposal.

Different Legitimate Burdens

If the motion suggests a policy, a negating team does not need to
provide a better solution to the problem identified by the affirming
team. A negating team can win by proving that the solution provided
by the affirming team causes more harm than good.
A negating team can also win by proving that there is a comparable and
mutually exclusive solution that is preferable to the affirming team's
solution.
A negating team could also disprove that any problem exists to the
extent that it needs to be solved, and that Affirmative's policy would
end up creating said problem.

Comparatives
Sometimes, the motion will
require the Negative team to
support a particular comparative
whether they like it or not. For
example, "That we would buy a
cat rather than a dog." The
Negative team can provide a
model for how they would buy a
dog, but they must stand by
getting a dog. They cannot easily
win by stating they would simply
not get a cat. (And everyone
should get a cat!)
Fiats
Affirmative teams are granted fiat or the
presumption that the motion can pass the
stage of approval in Parliament feasibly
and then be implemented by the
government. No Negative argument which
states the motion would be rejected in
Parliament is valid. An argument that the
government may struggle to effectively
implement the policy is valid, but their
will to implement it is beyond question.
Negative teams, in their mutually
exclusive counter proposals are granted
the equivalent level of fiat. Equivalent
levels of fiat only allow policies of roughly
the same scale and require roughly the
same resources. No fiat exists otherwise,
and the Affirmative team may challenge
counter-models that are not equivalent.
 9

Part I: The Basics

TYPES OF MOTIONS: VALUE JUDGMENT

Value judgment debates - as the name suggests expects

teams to debate the value (the harms and benefits) of a
particular thing, and/or the truth and falseness of a
given statement.

Value Judgment Motions (That we

regret, support, celebrate, oppose)
In a value judgement debate, teams do not have the need or “fiat” to make a
model - rather, they address the subject matter of the motion as it would play
out in the different contexts applicable, and the harms and benefits therein.

Regret
In "Regret" motions, otherwise known
as retrospective debates, Affirmative
must not only regret the existence of a
particular thing, but would need to
explain what happened due to that
existence and what would have
happened had the regretted
event/thing never occurred - and why
the world would have been better
without that which is being regretted.
Negative teams on the other hand need
to show why the existence of said thing
brought more benefits, and why its
inexistence would be more harmful to
the world.
Support
"Support" motions may require
Affirmative teams to support or
celebrate the existence of a
particular thing for having made
the world/society a better place.
Negative teams take on the
opposite burden, and neither
teams need to provide a model.
Some "Support" motions are
prospective in nature. For
example, "That we support the
establishment of a third gender
school". This motion requires the
imagination of the coming into
effect of a particular school and
what it would look like for the

Oppose world/society.
Teams do not have fiat over the
"Oppose" motions are the inverse of quality of the prosepective
“Support” motions and require schools, and the quality of the
Affirmative teams to oppose or implementation of the policy.
criticise the existence of a particular
thing for having made the
world/society a worse place.
 10

Part I: The Basics

TYPES OF MOTIONS: PREFER DEBATES

"Prefer" debates - tend to posit two or more choices,

with a preference for one. Like "Support" or "Oppose"
motions, these are analysis type motions and thus any
attempt by Teams to model or provide a policy will
have no real effect, but the motions would still require
parameters, context and definition to be set by teams.

Analysis Motions (That we prefer X

to Y; A & B rather than Y & Z)
In "Prefer" debates, teams are to take on one of the identified comparatives in
the motion. Affirmative is expected to prove why X is preferable to Y, and why Y
is the lesser choice. Negative is expected to do the opposite. Negative teams
should not simply win the debate by negating the preference of Affirmative.
They are expected to showcase why Y is preferable to X and why X is the lesser
choice. For example, in the motion "That we prefer a world where individuals
cannot lie", Negative should ideally give reasons why a world without the ability
to lie, and on top of that - why individuals are better off with the ability to lie.

Imagination
"Prefer" debates as can be seen above may not always be worded in a way
where two options are explicitly mentioned in the motion. The comparative
however tends to be immediately evident and implied.
Some "Prefer" debates are not simply a choice between two options of
actions but are rather a choice between two worlds. In this type of motion,
teams are required to use their imaginations to compare a new imagined
world with the mechanisms and functionalities provided by the Affirmative
team - against the current, existing, real world which must be defended by
the Negative team as the comparative. The debate cannot involve a
comparison of two fictional and imagined worlds.
 11

Part I: The Basics

TYPES OF MOTIONS: ACTOR DEBATES

Actor motions may be either policy or judgment

/analysis debates, but viewed through the self-defined
motivations and interests of the actor.

Actor Motions (That as X, we

would/ prefer/ regret/ support)
When dealing with an actor debate, you are required to consider the
preferences, and personal motivations of an actor. This is not a "should debate",
so unless an actor can be proven to have a moral commitment to acting in a
certain way, arguments about why a general person generally should or
shouldn't do something are not immediately convincing.

All About That Actor Interesting

While Actor motions require us to look at a set Some motions are
of benefits and harms from the perspective of, worded as "That X is in
and in relation to, the actor specified in the the interest of Y" -
motion and their motivations - it does not while this prioritises
mean that arguments cannot be made in the interests of the
relation to other actors or stakeholders. actor specified in the
Judges must therefore not automatically motion, this is not
discard and discredit any material which does exactly an Actor
not exclusively or directly affect the actor, if motion. This type of
teams are able to provide reasons for why the motion requires us to
actor should care about the other stakeholders, look at the impacts
or reasons for why the actor would owe a toward the actor, but
duty/obligation towards the stakeholders. from an independent
For instance, if the motion says "That as first third party observer's
world consumers, we oppose fast fashion", perspective. Thus, the
Affirmative can win by proving that first world scope of the debate is
consumers have a sufficiently strong duty not limited to the
towards the individuals in developing actor's motivations.
countries affected by the demand of fast
fashion, even if the benefit of that opposition is
not felt directly by the actor.
 12

Part I: The Basics

MOTIONS: DEFINITIONS & CHALLENGES

Some motions allow some room for teams to

interpret and extrapolate further terms and
definitions from the given phrases in the motion.
Judges must be aware of those definitions, as well as
the shifts and challenges which may occur.

Definitional Challenges
When dealing with definitional clashes, the judge should ask whether the
affirming team has advanced a definition that the globally informed citizen
would consider reasonable. For example, if the motion is “That we regret the
War on Drugs”, the affirming team might attempt to claim that an armed
intervention in Colombia was not part of the War on Drugs, despite the
common understanding of the term including that intervention. Where the
globally informed citizen believes that the War on Drugs involved an armed
intervention into Colombia, that is part of the War of Drugs that the affirming
team has to defend. Of course, they do not need to think that the armed
intervention into Colombia was good, just that the War on Drugs was still
overall a good thing. Some definitions might be less clear. The affirming team
should reasonably define what the regretted thing is, and the negating team can
challenge this definition.

Changes
When dealing with clashes over the nature
of a change in a world with or without the
subject of a motion, teams can claim things
that are reasonably expected to have/have
not occurred as a result of that change.
Further impacts that flow from that change
must be proved. For example, if the motion
was "That we regret the Iraq War", the
affirming team can claim that the Bush
Administration would clearly be less
willing to go to war with Iran, but cannot
claim that Iran will suddenly become a US
ally without explaining further.
Plausibility
Both teams are expected to
provide reasonable, non overly
restrictive definitions which
apply to a level of generality
intended by the motion.
Definitional challenges of words
in the motion can sometimes
happen and be equally plausible,
and judges must pay close
attention to how each, and not
only one of those definitions
interact with the cases of the
teams in assessing arguments
and responsiveness.
 13

Part I: The Basics

SCALES: SCORING SPEAKERS & JUDGES

Australs speaker score range for subtstantive speeches

is 70 - 80, with the lowest possible score being 70,
highest being 80 and average score being 75.

Speaker Scale (70 - 80)

Substantive speeches must be scored as whole numbers (ie. no ½ marks)!

LIkely one of the best speeches given at Australs, speaker is able to be

comprehensively responsive to all the important attacks from the
opposition either via their arguments or rebuttals, and is able to present
79 - 80 compelling argumentative analyses which convincingly further their
case. It is difficult to think of satisfactory refutations to any of the

arguments made.

Sophisticated arguments were made which successfully engage with the
main issues in the round. Links are very well-explained, and the
78 arguments are central to their case and warrant layered and nuanced
responses. The speech is clear and the flow from one argument to

another is coherent.

Good to very good, speech contains relevant arguments and
contributions which address key issues in the round. Speaker is able to
76 - 77 provide sufficient and thoughtful explanation. The speech is largely
clear, and speaker fulfilled their role.

Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them are

75 given, but contain obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or
irrelevant material and simplistic argumentation. Speech was

sometimes difficult to follow.

Relevant arguments are occasionally made, but with very rudimentary
explanation. The speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast
73 - 74 majority of the time. Structure poor; poor attempt to fulfill role.

The speech very rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally
formulated as arguments but with shallow/rudimentary analysis.
71 - 72 Speech is difficult to follow due to little/no structure and no direction or
conclusion.

Content is almost never relevant, and speech is both confusing and

70 confused. No structure or fulfillment of role in any meaningful sense is

provided, OR did not speak at all.

 14

Part I: The Basics

REPLY SPEECH SCORE

Australs speaker score range for reply speeches is half

of the substantive speaker score range which would
then be 35 - 80.

Reply Speech Scale (35 - 40)

Reply speeches can have half marks (e.g. 35.5).

How to Score
Reply speeches are judged out of 40. You can score a reply speech by taking
what you would consider to be an equivalent substantive speech score and
halving it. This means you have to imagine scoring a reply as if it were a full
substantive speech - and then halving that number. For example, if the reply
speech was equivalent to a 78 substantive speech in quality, you would score
the person a 39.

A reply speech score is not dependent on the speaker's already-delivered

substantive speech. (Reply speech is scored independently from the reply
speaker's prior speech in that round. They do not have to match and a reply
speech can in quality be better or worse than a substantive speech.) For
example, the 1st Negative speaker delivers a substantive speech you gave a 75
to. They then deliver a reply speech you would normally consider to be a 78.
That 78, and not the previous 75 is halved and that is the reply score - which is
39.

Important!
You do not score reply speeches by subtracting
40 from the equivalent substantive score!
 15

Part I: The Basics

JUDGE SCORING SCALE

Judges are not allowed to confer to arrive at a verdic5

for the debate. However, judges are to convene upon
ballot submission for a panel discussion - to ensure all
viewpoints can be reflected fairly in the OA to the
teams. Through this discussion, judges collect the
necessary info to also score each other.

Judge Scoring Scale (1 - 5)

Just as judges would want teams to score them fairly, we would like to remind
judges to also use the scale fairly when scoring fellow panellists and trainees.

Absolutely recommend to break. Highest quality
adjudication that makes sophisticated understanding of
5 the debate accessible to all involved, with nuanced
assessment of arguments and responses, and excellent

reference to clear metrics.

Would definitely recommend to chair. Judges very well,
with clear metrics, weighing and fantastic understanding
4 of interactions within the debate. Is able to identify
problems within each side's case without intervening.

Would recommend to panel. Describes and weighs all the

relevant arguments appropriately, however there are
some problems with the clarity of the justification of
3 their adjudication. May also not apportion credit to teams
in best way possible - either slightly over or

undercreditting certain aspects of the cases in the debate.

Would recommend to panel, but for less tight rounds. Is
able to identify relevant arguments appropriately, but
2 does very little to explain why the arguments won or loss
through the interactions in the debate. May rely mostly

on their intuition rather than specific metrics.

1 Would not trust with a vote. Did not weigh accurately,

misread significant sections of the debate. Should

trainee.
 16

Part II:
Fundamentals
INFORMED GLOBAL CITIZEN
Nepal Australs 2021 will be enforcing the judging standard of the
"Informed Global Citizen". Judges are then expected to behave as a
globally informed citizen would when assessing the voracity of
arguments and responses by teams.

The Informed Global Citizen

One of the most difficult things in debating is ensuring that speakers can
understand or reasonably expect what judges are thinking and trust that there will
be consistency between their decisions. In a perfect world, any judge could listen to
a debate and come to the same conclusion - the “correct call”. This is obviously
impossible, but there are some concepts which help standardise judging. The most
important of these is the Informed Global Citizen. The Informed Global Citizen is
an objective standard, ensuring that teams can assume certain things about the
judge and not worry that the judge's personal biases and interests will influence
their decision making.

Important Qualities
They are willing to be persuaded. They are not limited to a
While they have some intuitive particular context.
understanding of good and bad, a They have a good memory and
sufficiently good argument could understand that an argument
displace this understanding. cannot “fall out of the debate”
They have advanced logic and simply because the other team
reasoning skills, and low tolerance for chooses not to engage with it.
unexplained jargon. They are not locked into certain
They are familiar with issues and belief systems or ideological
events that have made international preferences.
headlines for a sustained period of They do not wholly accept
time. arguments or responses at face
value.
 17

Part II:
Fundamentals
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT SQUIRREL
Motions tend to carry particular intentions for what sort of
discussions can be reasonably expected to happen from the
phrasing, commonly referred to as "spirit of the motion".
Definitions can vary from room to room, but there is an
expectation for teams to not define terms disingenously, or in
ways that an informed global citizen would know are so obviously
inaccurate.

Squirrelling Auto Loss

Squirrelling refers to a team taking an
unreasonable interpretation of the motion.
This could include misunderstanding a
word or phrase in the motion, resulting in
them misinterpreting the debate. For
example, taking the word sanction to be an
endorsement rather than a penalty.
Squirreling can also include a team taking
a smaller burden than their side of the
motion requires them too. For example,
the affirmative team on “That we would
put a toll on all roads” arguing that they
would only apply tolls to the largest
highways. If a team squirrels, the other
team should point out that they have done
so, and explain why it is a squirrel.
Squirrelling teams do not warrant an
automatic loss. The debate still
needs to be judged and weighed
according to the arguments and
responses made in the debate itself.
Assessment
If an Affirmative team squirrels the
motion,
S k i l l s and the judge is aware but
the Negative team does nothing to
challenge or question this definition,
the squirrel may have one or both of
these effects on the debate:
i) The persuasiveness and/or speaker
scores of the Affirmative team could
be adversely affected (independent
of whether they win or lose)
ii) The debate operates as is, both
teams may be affected by the quality
of the discussion that took place,
either team could still win
 18

Part II:
Fundamentals
WEIGHING ARGUMENTS & RESPONSES
Issues should not be won or lost on the basis of who is able to say
more on a particular argument. Similarly, a team that is able to
prove a lengthy argument or rigorously analyse a practical impact
does not warrant a win simply due to those strategies. The weight
of arguments; their relevance; importance must be considered.

Caring About The Arguments

Teams will disagree on many things throughout a debate, but some clashes are more
important than others. Weighing a clash always starts from the motion and how much a
particular point would convince the globally informed citizen of one side of the motion.
However, this rapidly becomes complex, as the globally informed citizen likely cares about
many things. Teams should explain to you what the impacts of a clash are. Good teams will
tell you how you should weigh the different clashes against each other. Teams are also meant
to inform the judges why specific impacts are more important that others. These impacts
could be impacts stemming from a principle or practical argument.

Burdens Be Astute
When a judge thinks about what would convince The act of judging is applying your
them of the motion, they naturally think about critical faculties to the arguments
the “burdens” of a team that flow from a motion. brought, to see whether the
Read the motion carefully, because words like thresholds mentioned have been
“all” or “never” may change what the teams need met. This is not necessarily
to prove. Sometimes judges will go beyond the
something that can be “taught”; it
words of the motion to impose artificial burdens
is part of the craft you develop.
on the team, but this is to be strongly avoided.
Judges should also be cautious not to extrapolate However, there are some basic
the intention of the Adjudication Core from the elements. Look for and assess
motion - and then use that assumption to weigh logical links between the points
the issues in the debate. Similarly, judges should and their conclusion, the
be mindful to be critical of any assertion in the plausibility of their
debate itself from teams, of what is or isn't characterization to the globally
important in the debate - when there is no actual informed citizen, and whether the
analysis provided to support those claims. teams have explained why
something is important.

Part II:
Fundamentals
CONTINUATION: WEIGHING
In assessing the level of proof needed for an argument or
response, judges should be mindful not to impose unreasonably
high burdens. Improvements for arguments can always be saved
for constructive personal feedback but do not have to be a reason
to prevent a speaker from being proportionately credited in the
round itself if they are able to convince you of the claim they
made, and more so if that claim is consequential to the debate.
Weighing
When you are weighing clashes, you should
consider two things. First, how important is the
claimed conclusion? Proving, for instance, that one
side of the motion will cause immense suffering
would likely be a very significant contribution. The
globally informed citizen will likely already have a
preliminary view on this question - suffering is
almost universally considered a bad thing. Of
course, the informed global citizen could still be
convinced by a sufficiently good argument against
caring about something they ordinarily would, but
it is incorrect to assume you are a completely blank
slate with no intuitive understanding of good and
bad. Secondly, how much have they proven the
conclusion? Using the previous example, you
would ask yourself whether they have shown that
this immense suffering is likely to happen, or
whether they have merely asserted it.
Intuitiveness
Intuitiveness plays a part in debating and judging.
Some arguments may be more intuitive than
others, they are not necessarily more important.
19
Big Or
Small
Sometimes a contribution will be
marginal. This means you were not
convinced they were able to claim
their whole harm, but they did
prove that there would be a lesser
harm, or that the harm would apply
to a particular group, or that the
harm will occur on rare occasions, or
even just that there is the chance of
the harm occurring and we should
not take the risk. If teams make very
unrealistic, extreme claims about
what will happen, that may decrease
their persuasiveness in proving
anything at all, but teams will
always face rebuttal and mitigation
and the ambitions set out at first
will always be challenged. Teams
should be credited for the part they
prove. Judges must then assess the
weight of that contribution in the
debate.

Part II:
Fundamentals
CONTINUATION: WEIGHING
Judges need to look at whether an argument was sufficiently
explained before they can be persuaded by a claim. This means
that for example, if an argument is made at the death of a speech,
but lacks the necessary mechanism which would warrant the
relevant credit - judges should not complete the argument for the
team no matter how good or cool or compelling the argument
sounds to be.
Potentiality
Equally, sometimes, an important point will not be
developed as much as it could be in a perfect world.
However, this is not a reason to discount or
discredit the speech. If a point is sufficiently well
made, impacted, and weighed against other points
in the debate, it can be the deciding factor in a
debate. It is unlikely but definitely possible for a
point to be very valuable even if it is only brought
up in a single speech. Teams should be credited for
the part they have proved in that limited time.
Likelihood
In addition to links to prove whether a claim is true
or false, judges nees to pay close attention to the
likelihood of whether a particular thing may occur
as well. This may affect the strength of a harm or
benefit in the debate. Analysis or response from a
team is evidently necessary to show why a harm or
benefit is or is not likely, but judges must also be
critical not to award too much credit to a seemingly
"big" impact in the debate if the team did not prove
how likely it is to occur in the first place.
20
Clash Types
Sometimes points have particular
labels, like a “principle” point.
Remember to assess the content of
the point. Principled and practical
arguments are both valid in debates.
Amongst other things principled
arguments can provide a framework
to explain what things matter and
should matter in a debate and why
or whether a thing is morally
justifiable. They could explain the
foundation of practical arguments,
or why we should reject a position
even if it leads to a “good” practical
outcome. It is up to you to assess the
impact that material, whether
practical or principled, has an
impact on the outcome of the
debate. Judges should never
automatically assume that practical
outcomes and direct practical
consequences matter more than a
principle which may be overarching
in the debate.
 21

Part II:
Fundamentals
FACTS, ASSERTIONS AND CONTRADICTIONS
There are many things which could affect the persuasiveness of
an argument. Illustrations and examples can support an argument
and make it more believable. On the flipside assertions and
contraditions could make the strength of an argument
questionable. Facts when used are also not on their own
argumentative and persuasive. It is important to be cognizant of
all these things, when they happen - and how they affect the
debate.

Facts
Examples
In Support
Examples can enrich a team’s speeches, and
improve their clarity and persuasiveness. You may
find that a speaker’s use of examples makes them
more compelling and this might cause you to
increase that speaker’s scores. However, examples
alone cannot win a point. Speakers must still
explain how that examples works, what it is, or
why it matters. They serve to enhance analysis or
rhetoric, not to replace it, and are assessed through
the lens of the Informed Global Citizen like any
other contribution.
When assessing examples, you must do so as the
‘informed global citizen described on page 16.
Facts everyone knows to be
objectively true are sometimes used
by teams to support their claim.
This is essentially used in the same
way a case study or example is used.
Facts, just like any other example
however, are never absolute/end all
be alls for any argument no matter
how many numerical figures or
famous scholars are cited. Even
with facts, (which in reality may be
disputed) teams have to explain
why the facts matter, the impacts of
the facts and how they work in the
debate. Teams do not win on the
basis of facts alone. For example in
"That we would legalise smoking",
Negative does not immediately win
the debate by quoting the many
studies available on the harms of
smoking on the human lungs. They,
along with judges need to be
comparative and not be tied to
truisms and facts.
 22

Part II:
Fundamentals
CONTINUATION: FACTS
The following section serves as a reminder to judges that they
should not use their personal (otherwise inaccessible to the
public), knowledge in specific fields to adjudicate the worthiness
of an argument or response in a debate.

Spec Knowledge
Factual assertions are the building blocks of all arguments, because we are making
statements about the world. As a judge, your personal knowledge is irrelevant. This means
that regardless of whether you know something is true (for example, if you have done
specialised research on a particular topic as a part of your degree), you must only accept a
claim if the Informed Global Citizen would as well. It is therefore up to teams to explain to
the judge why they should believe something, building chains of facts from the things that
the informed global citizen would likely know. Be careful of teams asserting nice sounding
or complicated things, without explaining why you should believe them.

This applies the same regardless of whether you are considering something you personally
know to be true or you personally know to be false. It is not necessary for another team to
point out an untruth for you to discount it. If an informed global citizen would know
something is untrue without it being pointed out (eg, the night sky is always pink), the
judge can discount that statement.
 23

Part II:
Fundamentals
CONTRADICTIONS
There is significant strategy involved in contradictions. Teams
will be attempting to convince you that the other team's material
is contradictory or in tension, but should also explain to you
which side of the contradiction is then true, while also responding
to all possibilities. The other team will resist the allegation that
their material is inconsistent, and if caught out, may have to
figure out which aspects of their case to jettison.

Contradictions Tension
A team can change their position if done so clearly There is also a distinction between a
or if proven reconcilable. However, there are tension and a contradiction. A
numerous drawbacks for that team if not. 3rd contradiction means that it is
speakers are not allowed to bring new argument, impossible for you to believe that
later material tends to receive less development two things are true at the same time,
and be credited less for its late introduction, and meaning that the judge could only
the earlier willingness to accept something accept one of those arguments. A
contradictory will undermine the believability of tension is where it is difficult to
the later point. Note that many formal rule books believe two things at the same time,
will force you to only accept the earlier statement. meaning that the judge may find the
However, this does not reflect actual judging material less persuasive in general,
practice, in which a small, unimportant argument but the judge may accept both
that happens to be inconsistent with another point arguments. Remember that the
will not automatically force the judge to ignore the standard for whether material is
more persuasive material. This also means that contradictory or in tension is
whenever applicable, a contradiction may harm whether or not, after hearing the
part but not all of an argument. arguments, the informed global
citizen would believe that it is
possible for both things to be true at
Persuasiveness the same time. Remember that
different outcomes may apply to
Speakers contradicting their own teammate will different but simultaneously
obviously hurt their contribution, meaning that plausible groups or contexts. Two
they or the earlier speaker could receive worse seemingly opposite outcomes can
speaks. However, remember that contradictions be valid if the team credibly explains
and tensions are reflective of poor overall team that those outcomes occur for
strategy, and could likely affect the persuasiveness different stakeholders.
of the entire case.

Part II:
Fundamentals
ASSESSING THIRDS & REPLIES
Speakers are judged on their contributions. How
important was what the speaker said in convincing you of
their side of the motion? It is important to use this metric
when assessing speakers down a bench and not fall into
the trap of any prejudices against earlier speakers, or any
norm which lauds a later speaker absolutely.
Third Speakers
Third speakers are allowed to make new rebuttals,
but they are not allowed to bring new substantive
arguments into debates. Given how similar
rebuttals and substantives are, it is important that
judges pay attention and credit, or do not credit,
material in a third speaker's speech appropriately.
Don't Credit
Material that is called “rebuttal” but is actually
substantive, should be discounted if it doesn’t
actually target an existing argument in the debate.
For example, if the affirmative team claims that
this will stop kids from going to school, but the
"rebuttal" establishes that dinosaurs will rise again
and cruelly rule the earth. “Discounting” material
means that you do not consider that material when
assessing the speech or the debate, and instead
assess the debate and speech as if the material was
never said.
24
Credit
It would not be considered new
substantive for a third speaker to
take an existing harm from the
debate and “flip it,” i.e. turn that
harm into a benefit for their side and
can be credited for that. For
example, if affirming claims that this
will stop kids from going to school,
but the rebuttal proves that more
kids will go to school.
To determine if material given by a
third speaker is new substantive or
not, you should consider whether
that material builds from, or is
connected to, material provided by
previous speakers on their team. It
can be helpful for a third speaker to
make it clear to the judge in their
speech how the material is
connected. Third speakers should be
given credit for deepening examples
and existing points, but when those
additions cross over into being new
substantive, only those additions
should be discounted, not the whole
point as previously given by
speakers.

Part II:
Fundamentals
REPLY SPEAKERS
Reply speakers are not allowed to give new rebuttal or
new substantive material. They may add framing and
weighing (provided that is not new substantive), to
explain why, given what has happened in debate, they
ought to win the debate. A good reply speech is not only a
biased summary of a case, but a speech which makes use
of the adjudication metrics, to the advantage of the team.
Later Speakers
A later speaker, just by virtue of speaking later, will
likely deliver a more sophisticated version of a
point. As a judge, however, you don't judge how
good the point is. Rather, you judge how much
better the point is than what came out before it -
how important are the extra examples, impacting,
and responses? It also is easy to overinflate the
importance of a small contribution that is the
"difference" between two teams. These tend to
come out at third, as the third speakers give the
last pieces of analysis. Sometimes these
contributions will be the culmination of the debate,
highly sophisticated and difficult to execute
successfully, meaning that they deserve to be
rewarded as an impressive and important
contribution. Sometimes, however, an objectively
weak contribution can be the tipping point in a
close debate. Always assess the significance of the
contribution, and don't forget about all the material
that meant the debate was close in the first place.
25
Replies
Replies are judged by exactly the
same metrics as listed in the
previous page (i.e. how important
and convincing was their material).
That said, they are scored as half of
the score of a its equivalent in
substantive speech (reflecting the
fact they are half the length). Reply
speeches are an opportunity for
teams to summarise the material of
the debate in a way most favourable
for their team. They cannot however
present any new material
(substantive or rebuttal) but they
can recombine existing material as
they choose. For example, they
cannot provide a new mechanism,
but they could group existing
mechanisms together in different
ways to be more persuasive. Reply
speeches can be debate-winning:
they can change how a judge views a
team’s material to that team’s
advantage.
 26

Part II:
Fundamentals
RESPONSES
Speakers can have material that preemptively responds to a later
point from the opponent, or material that later deals with a point
in an earlier speech. It is however important to assess responses
with the same considerations granted to an argument, that is -
responses can be in part or wholly effective and may have a huge
or marginal impact on the debate. Some arguments may require
little response, while others - significant.

Mitigation Layered
All responses must have the same degree of Responses are a direct way to gauge
provability as an argument. Like substantive engagement between teams in the
arguments, they too must have logical links, debate. Aside from mitigating or
likelihood and necessary mechanisms in order to disproving the truthfulness of a
persuade a judge on their truthfulness. Some claim, good teams look to be
responses may address a part but not defeat, the comprehensive and layered with
entirety of a benefit or harm made by a speaker. their responses. This may look like,
This is known as a mitigatory response and serves showing what happens even if
to mitigate the extent of the alleged harm or harms in their world exist, and why
benefit. Mitigation is an effective strategy and their world would still be better
should be credited. However some arguments will than their opponents' world.
still have parts standing after mitigation is made, Additionally teams may look to
and whether or not the parts left standing are still comparing the different alternative
strong enough are what judges should consider in outcomes in each side's case and
deciding the debate. It follows that if the argument pointing to exclusive benefits which
made by a speaker is deemed important, and the would in turn exist in their world
responses from the opponent mitigated the but not the opponent's . Judges
argument but did not successfully overtake the should once again look to links
argument - then the argument may still be strong provided and understand the
enough to win the debate, and those responses distinction between a complete
conversely - not strong enough. response, a mitigatory response and
a response which was merely said
and not explained - in
apportionating weight accurately.
 27

Part II:
Fundamentals
THE FAIR ASSESSMENT OF STYLE
Of late, "style" has become something of a loaded term for some
judges and speakers. No speaker should be adjudicated on the
basis of their language proficiency and "poshness" of accent, but it
is entirely valid to credit speakers for their ability to emotionally
captivate the judge with existing persuasive material. These can
be done by way of control of intonation, effective pauses, use of
humour and sarcasm, and clever pacing in a speech. A big part of
debating is persuasion after all.

Style Faster =/= Better

In some ways, the distinction between style and
substance is artificial - teams are trying to get you
to believe and care about their arguments, and you
should consider whether they have been
successful. The general conception of style is any
aspect of your speaking that deepens the
persuasiveness of the ideas in your case. Part of the
magic of debating is the diversity of effective style.
Bias
Be mindful that your idea of style is informed by
the aspects of communication that we hold in
common - humour, narrative, clarity - rather than
any biases you may personally hold. In addition to
increasing persuasiveness, style is an important
way to ensure that people do not abuse particular
techniques that make debating less accessible, such
as excessive speaking speeds and buzzwords, as
addressed in this portion of the manual.
You should make your best effort to
understand what all speakers are
saying, but should not feel pressure
to go to an exceptional effort if the
average debater would not be
reasonably capable of absorbing the
material in a coherent way.
Crucially, judges should note that
the speed with which a debater
speaks, is not a mark of their quality.
If a speaker speaks at a quicker pace,
they do not automatically have more
content. Conversely, someone who
speaks at a slower pace should not
be regarded as a weaker speaker.
Judges are reminded to be mindful
of this especially given how all
speakers, be they EPL, ESL or EFL
debaters - have varying speeds.
Judges should consider this when
they are judging anyone that seems
to speak fast. Speaking fast =/=
better arguments.

Part II:
Fundamentals
CONTINUATION: STYLE
Effective pacing in a speech will help with the persuasiveness of a
speech. A speaker who speaks extraordinarily fast and
compresses too many words per minute may be doing so to create
the perception they are saying more than what they actually are -
or that judges should credit them merely for the fact that they are
saying a lot of words. Don't fall for this.
Hold Your
Horses!
If a speaker speaks substantially more quickly than
the norm, even if they structure their speech
effectively, they are likely bringing too much
material for a judge to reasonably absorb. In that
case, it is not your fault if you miss things from that
speech. There is a temptation with good, very fast
speakers for judges to fill in the gaps of arguments
or reconstruct those arguments out of their
condensed form, as a way to show they are a "good
judge" who can keep up. You must not “fill in the
gaps” by completing analysis for speakers if you
did not hear them say it. This risks over-crediting a
speaker for analysis they did not properly explain
to you. You should feel comfortable telling
speakers that they spoke too quickly for you to
hear and understand everything. It is also
reasonable to punish speakers with lower scores
for speaking too quickly, as good judges should not
credit them for material that is too fast for an
average debater to understand. However, speakers
who have a slow or reasonable speed should not be
credited solely for not speaking too quickly.
28
Careful!
Nevertheless, you must not just
decide that a speaker “sounds” fast
or slow. Our perception of speed can
be affected by how well we
understand that person’s accent or
way of speaking. You should judge
according to the listening capacity
of the average debater. Someone
who speaks substantially more
quickly than that is speaking too fast
and should not be credited for the
material the average debater would
be unable to understand. You should
comment on the speaker’s speed in
their feedback. Remember that if
you credit a speaker for arguments
which were made too quickly to
understand, the other team would
very fairly be able to raise this as a
concern in their judge feedback.

Part II:
Fundamentals
CONTINUATION: STYLE
There is a distinction between economising of words and
substituting analysis and substantiation with jargons and
buzzwords. Judges should pay close attention to which of these
categories speakers belong to in each debate - and not overcredit
a team for using seemingly sophisticated, fancy terms which go
underexplained when the explanations are sorely needed.
Jargon
Teams often use buzzwords: words or phrases
which are popular in debating at the time, or
jargon: technical terms. Teams may do this without
thinking about it, or deliberately to seem more
knowledgeable or skilled than they actually are.
You may understand what some of these
buzzwords or jargon mean. However, you must
adjudicate as an informed global citizen, who is
unlikely to understand them all. For example, while
epistemic access may be a popular term in debating
at the moment, an informed global citizen likely
has no idea what that means. Therefore, speakers
must actually explain their analysis and why it
matters without relying on buzzwords or jargon.
Not Wrong
However, this does not mean that all speakers who
use jargon should be punished. The average
informed global citizen is capable of learning new
things if they are explained well. If a team is able to
explain a complex idea to you, and what the jargon
they use means, you should reward that.
29
Sensibilities
You may feel pressured to credit
teams for using buzzwords to
demonstrate that you are up-to-date
with debating fashions. Similarly,
you might feel you have to credit
jargon, rather than admitting you
didn’t understand the complicated
economics a team was explaining.
However, it is up to teams to explain
things to you properly and to
persuade you. This is extremely
important for two key reasons.
Firstly, it prevents circuits with less
access to global debating from being
disadvantaged. Secondly, it prevents
teams getting away with lazy
analysis and argumentation. If you
feel a team has overused buzzwords
or jargon, you could point this out in
feedback. Teams should want to
know how to make their arguments
better.
 30

Part II:
Fundamentals
CONTINUATION: JARGON
While jargon and buzzwords can sometimes be overused by
certain teams, context matters - some jargon is sometimes
universally already understood and require less elaboration than
other buzzwords, while some teams simply lack access to further
expounding of that jargon. Be mindful of how the argument
interacts with the debate despite the use of the jargon.

Important to Note
Finally, please also keep in mind that the line between “unexplained jargon” and justifiably-
used ones may be arbitrary. For instance, in an economic debate, a debater may not need to
explain what “inflation” is (the term is considered to be well within the purview of a globally-
informed citizen’s realm of knowledge), but is still required to explain to what extent
inflation impacts the economy, and so on.

Please also note that those who learned English as a second or foreign language may be less
privy to being able to explain jargons concisely in their expanded, “simpler” forms (due to
the process of creating concise sentences possibly taking longer to translate from the head,
and harder to execute). The opposite may also be true: that specific jargons are more difficult
to access. In either case, please take into account the intricacies associated with jargon
assessment to nuance the way you judge.
 31

Part III: Duties

SETTLING DISPUTES
Judges do not have the obligation to settle all side
disputes between teams - but there are certain things
they are expected and empowered to do to ensure a
debate as it was intended, happens fairly for both teams.

Disputes During Motion Selection

Teams have been instructed to verbally confirm their chosen motion after they
share their preferences. However, assuming either team is silent and has not
audibly confirmed the selected motion, judges should verbally confirm the motion
with the teams after they finish ranking the motion. This could simply be done by
asking for example the following question - "Can I confirm that teams have chosen
to debate the first/second/third motion?". Judges should also make a note of each
side's shared preferences - so that a copy of the rankings is kept by the panel in the
event any disputes arise later when the debate is meant to begin. The role of the
judge here is only to present the fact of the ranking, not to interpret the intention
behind the ranking. This means that if a team realises that they may have
accidentally ranked their first preference as '3' which would instead imply a veto,
the judge is to proceed with the rankings as they were and not change it according
to what the teams say they meant to do. "3" will for the purpose of ranking always
remain a veto. The other rankings will also always correspond to the usual rubric
outlined for motion preferences unless teams explicitly spell out their preferences
when sharing their ranks.

Clarify With Teams

Before debates begin, adjudicators (ideally Chairs) should clarify the motion with
the room. This is important because you must record on your ballot which motions
were vetoed and which were debated. This is especially important if any judge was
not present during motion selection. But it also allows you to identify early if a team
has prepared the wrong motion. If you find out that a team has prepared the wrong
motion before the debate starts, you should give the team 1 minute to discuss the
correct motion then begin the debate without further delay. This is why it is very
important that speakers and teams check with their opposition which motion they
are doing before they begin their preparation, in order to avoid this from happening.
 32

Part III: Duties

CONTINUATION: SETTLING DISPUTES
Sometimes speakers may realise their mistake of
preparing for the wrong side or the wrong burden as they
are giving a speech. Judges should resist the urge to be
too nice, in the interest of fairness.

Speaker Realises During Speech

Sometimes a team may prepare the wrong side of the motion (e.g. they are
Affirmative but prepare an negating case rather than an Affirmative one). While
unlikely - it can be the case that a speaker realises this mistake mid-speech, or after
having started their substantive speech.

If they realise before the first two minutes have lapsed, and they ask to be allowed
some room to correct the mistake, pause your timer. Confirm with the speaker that
they have the wrong side of the motion. If they actually do have the right side, allow
them to continue. If they have the wrong side of the motion, give them one (1)
minute to discuss the correct side with their teammates. After one minute, they can
restart their speech from the beginning (so they have a full 8 minutes). If the
speaker realises that they have prepared the wrong side of the motion after two
minutes of their speech have passed, they are allowed a brief pause to gather their
thoughts, but then they must continue their speech. They cannot discuss with their
teammates. This is obviously quite challenging, and is why teams must read the
motion carefully to ensure they prepare the correct side.

Keep Mum
If for example an Affirmative team never realises that they have prepared the
wrong side, the adjudicator must not intervene. The first Negative speaker should
point out the Affirmative team’s error, and then continue as normal. The Negative
team must also be judged just as you normally would judge them. They should not
be penalised because the Affirmative team has made an error.
 33

Part III: Duties

WHAT IS & ISN'T INTERVENTIONIST
As mentioned previously, judges take on the role of an
informed global citizen when judging debates. There is a
difference between intervening in a debate, and
assessing the overall persuasiveness of a point, even
when a response is not made against it.

Contemplating Squirrels
Sometimes teams may disagree on the definition of the motion. The Affirmative
team has the prerogative to define the motion if they do so reasonably, e.g. without
squirreling. If the Affirmative team has offered a reasonable definition, then that
definition must be debated. The Negative team should not offer an alternative
definition and could potentially be marked down for lack of engagement. However,
if the Negative team thinks that the Affirmative team has been unreasonable, they
may challenge the definition. The adjudicator must then decide whether the
affirmative team was reasonable or not. If both definitions are reasonable, the judge
must weigh how those definitions interacted with the debate.

Perceptive
Things which are said in a debate are not always relevant. Some norms have
allowed speakers to assume that judges must credit, word for word what was
said in a debate. But as we have looked at before - we weigh based on
importance, impact, relevance and so on. That also means judges should not
overcredit an argument or response simply because it was mentioned - rather
they must look at whether what was said was *persuasive*. This is however
not an excuse for judges to discredit an argument without providing
justification for that reduced weight.
 34

Part III: Duties

CONFIRMING YOUR BALLOT
Australs is not conferral judging, but it is a format that
requires a discussion to be had after the ballot is
submitted. Given the size of Nepal Australs, we need
judges to be extra cautious to prevent errors in ballots.

Who Submits Ballots

The Chair in each debate room will be submitting one ballot for the entire room. The
ballot will contain spaces for the whole panel of voting members. Chairs will fill out
the ballot on behalf of everyone. There are a few ways for Chairs to navigate
through this process. After the debate ends, the Chair should ask the teams to
remain in the debate room - while judges move to the allotted judge room which
corresponds to their room number. Typically, at this point - Chairs allow for the
members on the panel to have 2-3 mins to look through their notes before they
come to a decision independently. After the Chair confirms that everyone has come
to their respective calls - Chairs may then:
i. Ask the panellists to privately message the Chair their calls and the chair then
transfers the information onto the ballot, (at this point the chair can but does not
have to screenshare to cross check that everyone's scores are accurately reflected)
and then confirms and submits the ballot.
ii. Chairs may also ask the panellists to simultaneously send their debate calls to the
judge room chat at the exact same time after a small countdown. They send these
into the chat, along with their scores. Chairs then fill out, confirm and submit the
ballot.

Confirming The Right Info

Each member of the panel who is capable of voting in the round, needs to make sure
that not only are their scores accurately reflected - before sending their call to the
Chair but also that the intended recipients of said scores are accurately reflected.
This is why all judges need to have the list of names of speakers in the debate.
Australs will be recognising not only the best substantive speakers in the
tournament, but also the best reply speakers. It is pivotal that judges give the right
scores to the right speakers. Importantly - judges must make sure the Oral
Adjudication matches what is on the ballot. It is rare, but not unheard of for judges
to either wrongly put who they thought won the debate and/or wrongly gave the
OA. Errors like these will delay the tournament and hurt the draw if detected late.
 35

Part III: Duties

MANAGING PANEL DISCUSSIONS
After the ballot is submitted, the judges have a brief
discussion (not to decide the debate) but to ensure that
the Oral Adjudication can be as fair and reflective as
possible of how everyone saw the debate.

Time: 15 mins
Come to your decisions independently, including full scoring. The entire panel has a
total of 15 minutes only before the Chair needs to proceed to the Oral Adjudication!
The chair should fill out and submit the online ballot before giving their OA.

Nature of The Discussion

The role of the chair is to moderate the discussion. Sometimes, in the interest of
time, the chair will need to direct conversation to where it is most necessary.
Anyone who is asked a question in the discussion should answer questions directly!
Judges need to refrain from wanting to recap the entire debate and giving indirect
justification instead of answers pertinent to the discussion. Chairs are reminded to
include everyone on the panel, in the discussion - this includes voting and non
voting members. Trainees should not under any circumstance be ignored by the
rest of the panel and the Chair just because they do not actively have a say in who
wins or loses the debate.

What's In A Split
Discussions are also necessary to incorporate the views of the minority decision of
the panel assuming the verdict was not unanimous. If there is a dissenting vote,
Chairs could start the discussion by having the dissenting judge identify the main
clashes which made their vote swing the other way. Chairs can use this info to
effectively guide the rest of the discussion. If the Chair is in the minority decision,
and thus would be the split, the Chair can do the same and identify the areas which
swayed them to their decision. If the Chair is the minority in the split - they ideally
should not have to deliver the Oral Adjudication and they can either choose a
member of the panel to deliver the Oral Adjudication, or have one of the members of
the panel volunteer. Optionally, the Chair can still deliver the Oral Adjudication.
 36

Part III: Duties

WHAT IF: EQUITY VIOLATIONS
& CHEATING
Similar to side disputes, judges are not under any
obligation nor are they empowered to, resolve equity
concerns on their own. The Adjudication Core must be
informed if there are allegations of cheating and the
Equity Officers are the ones who are empowered to act
on any equity matters.

Cheating Rumours
Sometimes allegations of teams or speakers cheating may come up. Either the
opponents may suspect this to be the case, or judges themselves may have some
way of suspecting that a speaker is not necessarily reading off their own notes but
rather a very specific set of facts plausibly but highly unlikely, to have been
prepared ahead of time but rather more likely to have been searched up on the
internet during prep time. The usual giveaway would possibly be that the speaker
in question cites extremely recent but specific data for a topic which is not
conventionally accessible to such a degree.

No matter how sure a judge or team is of their suspicions, they cannot enforce their
own punishment. Teams are not entitled to corrective justice assuming they lost to
the team suspected of cheating. This is even if their hunch is correct. Similarly,
judges cannot take it upon themselves to punish a team in any way other than
what is otherwise expected in the normal course of a debate. A judge must assess
the debate as is, weigh the facts the way they normally should, and use the
arguments as they are, and not how they may have been influenced - to arrive at
their decision. If anyone suspects a speaker or team of cheating, the Adjudication
Core must be informed. Further action, will be taken by them - likely with the help
of the Equity team.

Equity Complaints
If a judge thinks a team is committing an equity violation in their argument or
speech, the judge should note that down and communicate it to the Equity Officers
so that they may issue reminders and warnings as they deem fit. The judge should
not under any circumstancr penalise the speaker's scores solely because of it. A
judge can, between speeches make a general reminder to teams to be mindful of
equity standards. The same applies if another judge commits a violation.
 37

Part III: Duties

DO'S & DON'TS OF OA

Panels and solo chairs both have a maximum of fifteen

minutes to deliberate. This means that 15 minutes after
the debate has ended, ballots must be completed and an
OA must be ready.

8-10 minutes for OA

An OA should be no longer than 10 minutes. Ideally, the OA should be around 8
minutes. OAs which last longer than 10 minutes may confuse teams, cause delays at
the tournament, and result in less positive judge feedback. Conciseness is a virtue.
Make it clear to teams that they are entitled to individual feedback. The
Adjudication Core and/or Tab Team will be chasing judges who exceed the allotted
tine for OAs. Please avoid being someone we have to chase repeatedly - judges will
be named and shamed.

Do's Dont's
OAs are most impactful when they are OAs should not contain
structured and allow teams and fellow judges to personal comments on how
follow the train of thought of the Chair/person certain arguments could have
delivering the OA. OAs are fairest when they been better. Judges can make
perfectly encapsulate the most pressing issues in note of how some arguments
the debate, but aren't a mere rehash of what were brief, but how the
transpired. The best judges do not regurgitate analysis works or does not
word for word everything back to the debaters work to deal with the
but are capable of pointing to specific parts as opposing team is what
reference without wholly re-arguing for the matters. Some panel
teams. OAs need to also include how judges discussions can be messy,
weigh issues. Simply suggesting that arguments judges should prioritise
were weighed more or less, or that they were "a simplicity and the majority
wash" are not enough. Judges need to explain the decision when relaying
metrics for the weighing (why issues were justification - teams should
weighed the way they were) and not just vaguely be encouraged to seek out
say what they weighed and did not. OAs should panel after. OAs should not be
acknowledge all contributions in the debate, and a popularity contest, be real,
address if some were just less relevant to the and do not sugarcoat to get
deciding metric and why. higher scores.
 38

Part III: Duties

FEEDBACK TO TEAMS

Teams may or may not ask for additional personal

feedback from judges. Judges should however remain
available and ready to provide them. A lack of requests
for personal feedback should not be taken as an
indication of poor performance. Judges should also not
insert personal feedback in OAs.

Case Feedback
Judges should refrain from telling teams that debates which look a certain way
"must" contain certain arguments. This is different from informing teams to be
cognizant of their burdens in the debate, and how they needed to have provided a
counterfactual in a "Regret" motion but didn't, for example. The distinction is that
judges should be mindful to suggest additional arguments to teams which would be
strategic - but not limit the debate to only include those arguments. Teams should
not have the impression for that to be the case especially since diversity of
arguments can often be a good thing. This is also a way for judges to remember that
the way they perceive the debate is not how they should decide the debate. If
judges misread or miss out on certain strategies - they then run the risk of giving
teams potentially harmful feedback. Always frame these additional arguments as
suggestions.

There are judges who only look to giving case feedback based on what the teams
could have argued in addition to what was said in the debate - but in truth most
teams also want to know how there were areas of weakness for the specific
arguments they had.

Personal Feedback
Personal feedback for individual speakers can relate, but would not be limited to:
a. Role fulfillment (whether a whip introduced new arguments for example)
b. Strength of links provided to prove an argument (were they tangible or tenuous)
c. Quality of response (were the responses complete, dismissive, mitigating)
d. Did the speaker compare outcomes and important materials sufficiently?
e. Was there material in the speech which undercut another impact they had?
f. Was the speaker able to illustrate, explain, provide necessary context?
 39

Part III: Duties

FEEDBACK TO TEAMS

Taking good notes on speeches, using the tips in the

previous section, is the first step in giving good feedback.
Speakers often want individual feedback. However, it’s
good to actually check if speakers want feedback. You
should also check how they want to receive it; not all
speakers will be comfortable hearing feedback in front of
everyone else. In that case another method, such as
written feedback via private message later or a private
discord channel, may be more suitable.

Being Constructive
You may wish to give speakers feedback on their content, their analysis, their
structure, their timing, their style, or anything else you can think of. It’s important
to give constructive feedback, i.e. something the speaker can actually work on.
Telling a speaker you hate their style is not constructive, whereas suggesting that
they slow down when signposting is. It’s also important to think about how much
feedback to give. A speaker is unlikely to be able to take on 5+ pieces of feedback.
It’s more sensible to think of 1-3 key things that you think are most important for
the speaker to know, and just cover those. It’s important to remember to be kind
and to be respectful when giving feedback to speakers. Remember that they are
human beings who are trying their best.

Sometimes teams may want feedback for their team overall. Obviously your oral
adjudication is the starting point for a team who wants to understand why they
have won or lost, but sometimes teams may want to know more. You might want to
comment further on strategic choices they made, different content they could have
run, or different ways to prep analysis as a team. Teams might also benefit from
general tips on how to approach a certain type of motion in future. It’s up to you
what feedback to give, but keep in mind the same principles as for giving feedback
to individual speakers.
 40

Part IV: Reminders

KNOW YOUR POTENTIAL BIASES
Be mindful of your potential prejudices and biases, and
constantly check them at the door. Debates are an exercise
in empathy, and judges should not use their own
experiences to colour their perspective of the debate.

Self Awareness
You must be aware of various biases when you are judging, and adjust accordingly.
This includes equity-related biases, such as biases against different accents,
different tones (remarks such as a speech being less persuasive because the
speaker was “high-pitched” or “shouty”), or against women speakers. Other biases
include recency biases, where judges may over-credit arguments they heard more
recently in the debate. Stylistic biases, where judges favour certain types of
speaking over others (for example, in some contexts, “aggressive” speeches are
considered less persuasive than calm, level-headed ones; while in other contexts,
the opposite is true), or circuit biases, where judges favour arguments typical of
their circuit over others. Language-related bias, which intersects with equity, is
when speakers or judges with less precise or EFL-perceived command of English
are deemed to have less credibility and value regardless of the actual content of
their reasoning. It goes without saying that there could also be biases due to
established reputations. Judges should not immediately lend credibility to teams
(or be unwilling or reluctant to award losses to them) when they are popuar, or
known to have recently achieved some sort of success. Judges should not be afraid
of "big" teams. Judges should also be cognizant and cautious of potential biases due
to actual, extreme proximity in relationships (regional, national or just personal
affinity/closeness).

Having biases is an integral part of communication and public speaking. We are

not invulnerable to this. Because Australs (and any debating tournament in
general) is a melting pot of multiple cultures, as much as possible please be
cognizant and aware of how one’s biases may affect the way we see debates. It is
your responsibility to make sure that you are accounting for your own biases and
judging fairly and equitably.
 41

Part IV: Reminders

WHAT SHOULDN'T AFFECT
YOUR DECISION

In addition to all the previously mentioned biases, the

following is a list of things you need to remember not to
let affect your decision making.

Don't Use This To Award

Wins/Losses
Not liking the speaker's looks
Not liking the speaker's voice
Speaker uses extremely sophisticated sounding terms
Speaker seems aggressive
Team seems intimidating and might lowball judge if given the loss
Speaker is friends with people you don't like
Team is known to be disruptive and rude to teams and judges

Reminder
We have a whole section on how to weigh arguments and reaponsea. We urge you
to go through that section. Even if the debate turns out to be not what you
expected, or incorrect in any way, judges must judge the debate as it happened
and not how they would've liked the debate to be.
 42

Part IV: Reminders

NOTE TAKING TIPS
You should have a plan for how you will take notes during
debates. Some judges use paper with a line drawn
vertically or horizontally to split their page between
affirmative and negative, so that they can compare each
teams arguments side by side. Other judges may use Word
documents on laptops. No matter what you do, try to have
a system, and ideally practise taking notes this way before
the tournament.

Stay Organised
Your notes should reflect what the speaker has said in the most honest way
possible. This means not adding any extra detail or nuance to the arguments in
your note-taking that was not present in the speech. This also means not to miss
key nuances, details, and sub-points speakers make to support the premises they
make (remember that a premise’s persuasiveness may easily increase this way).
This may feel overwhelming, but a practice in shorthand (either virtually or on
paper) and familiarising yourself with jotting down keywords to briefly illustrate
entire sentences would be more than helpful to aid you in this process. Accurate
notes allow you to accurately judge and score the speech after the debate.

It can be very useful to make assessment comments (for instance, “this point
defeats Point #2 that the previous speaker discussed!” or linking the two with an
arrow, and so on) so that you keep track of the dynamics of the debate in real time.
This would help you arrive at a decision far quicker as well.

It is also useful to take feedback notes as you go. This means as each speaker
speaks, you take notes on ways they could improve their style, structure, content
or any other element of their speech. This makes it much easier to give feedback
after the debate than if you are just attempting to recall a speaker from memory.
 43

Part IV: Reminders

THE SILENT ROUND
In silent rounds, there is no OA. However, there is still a
15-minute time limit on panel deliberations. After 15
minutes, a decision must be made and a ballot must be
submitted

Round 8
Following convention, Nepal Australs will have Round 8 as the silent round. This
means teams do not receive their results until after the breaks are announced.
Owing to time differences, judges should inform the teams if they are unavailable
after break announcements for results and feedback but judges must make
themselves available at some point (the next day if need be). This is because we
think teams are owed their explanations, and judges should be empathetic to the
teams' pursuits to finding ways to better improve themselves as well.

Keep It Secret, Keep It Safe

Decisions during the silent rounds must be kept secret. This means you cannot
discuss the result of the round you adjudicated with anyone, besides during the
panel deliberation itself. Revealing the result of a silent round is a serious violation
of the rules of the tournament and will have serious consequences.

Score Honestly
Emotions tend to be high for judges in the last round too. Some judges will be on
the verge of breaking. Judges must be level-headed in the last round and score
each other fairly and honestly. Do not let the competition get the better of you,
and tank your fellow judges - you may still not end up breaking even if you do this.
 44

Part IV: Reminders

MANAGING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
The online age of debating brings with it the benefit of
accessibility. Our reliance on technology has its
drawbacks. Judges need to know what to do if speakers, or
either they or other judges disconnect and drop from the
call.

If Speaker Drops Out

There are a few scenarios which could take place.
i. If a speaker drops out before their speech - they have a maximum of 5 minutes
before one of the remaining members has to ironspeak.
ii. If a speaker drops out within the first 2 minutes of their speech, you must pause
the time and take note of it. They have 3 minutes to reconnect. If they are able to -
they can continue the speech where they left off or restart their speech. If they
drop out after the first 2 minutes of their speech have lapsed - and then reconnect
within 3 mins they must pick up where they left off and cannot restart the speech.
iii. If a speaker drops out at any point during their speech and is unable to
reconnect after 3 minutes, one of the remaining members of the team has to
ironspeak for the remainder of the time. Whoever spoke longer will be the one
judges score.

If Chair Drops Out

Chairs have a maximum of 5 minutes to reconnect. If they disconnect before,
during, or between speeches - panellists and trainees must inform the
Adjudication Core immediately. They will either find a replacement or promote a
panellist to Chair position. This action will come into effect if after the 5 minutes,
the original Chair is still not present.

If Panellist or Trainee Drops Out

Panellists have maximum of 3 minutes to reconnect, Trainees have 2. If they
disconnect before, during or between speeches - Chairs must inform the
Adjudication Core immediately but do not have to wait to hear back from the
Adjudication Core. The debate will resume with or without them at the end of the
2 or 3 minutes as the case may be.
 45

Part IV: Reminders

DEALING WITH UNHAPPY TEAMS
Teams can end up getting upset at a decision, during the
delivery of an Oral Adjudication, in feedback or even
during the debate. Judges must be mindful not to engage
in combative behaviour, while attempting to maintain
control of the room.

Angry Teams
As usual, if a team is rude during a debate but still deserves the win, you must still
award them the win even if begrudgingly so.

If a team is upset mid way through your delivery of an Oral Adjudication, remind
the team that you can address their concerns in personal feedback but just as you
had to listen to them speak during the debate without interrupting them - they
too now have to give you the floor to deliver your OA without interruption. Be
firm!

If a team is persistently hostile despite all measures taken to calm them down and
engage with them - feel free to tell the team that the decision remains the way it
was announced and that it is best for both you and the team not to belabour the
issue. They have their option to submit judge feedback and you have the option to
access the Equity Complaints form if you feel they have committed an equity
violation.

How Rude
Sometimes disruptive behaviour occurs during the debate. You do not need to
stop the speech unless there is behaviour occurring which threatens the order of
the debate. Examples of such behaviour include a team yelling so much so that the
speaker is inaudible, or repeatedly interrupting. Otherwise, you should not stop a
speaker if they say something you think may be an equity violation.
 46

Part IV: Reminders

SCORING YOUR FELLOW JUDGES
Scoring your fellow judges honestly is important. The
scoring scale can be found in "Part I: Basics" of this manual.
Please note that judges who miss significant parts of the
debate cannot vote, but they can still participate in the
discussion to the extent to which they were present.

What To Consider
There are several metrics on which you should be scoring your judge:
Accuracy: did the judge describe what happened in the debate correctly?
Justification: did the judge logically explain how their decision flowed from the
way they saw the debate?
Clarity: did the judge speak in a way that you could understand, and not use
words that were too complex or too simplistic?

Scoring your judge is not just about whether you agree with their decision – it is
about whether the decision is reasonable and thorough. You are owed an
adjudication that is accurate, justified, and clear. If a judge pretends the debate is
closer than it is, they are being dishonest and self-serving. Honesty does not need
to be brutal, and judges should be able to be both honest and kind. Equally, you
should leave comments that explain the score you give, in a way that is accurate to
their performance.
 47

Part IV: Reminders

THE JUDGE BREAKS
We receive a lot of these questions from individual judges.
This manual is prepared to answer these questions already
and we hope judges are familiar enough with this portion
as well, come 29th December.

Our Breaks
In order to be break eligible, judges must judge at least 6 out of the 8 preliminary
rounds. That does not however mean that they should choose to miss 2 rounds.
Judges must obtain the permission of the Adjudication Core if they have to miss
any round and must declare the round they will be missing ahead of time - except
in cases of emergencies. This will be a very important factor in deciding whether
judges are able to follow the rules which make them eligible.

Judge breaks will be based on a mix of average feedback score received each
round, quality of feedback, as well as regional and gender balance. Please note that
being Chair/Panellist or Trainee for any round does not guarantee that you will or
will not break. The Adjudication Core has no interest in purposely not breaking
strong performing judges so we will endeavour to ensure the fairest break
possible.

if you are interested in guided, consolidated feedback on your performance -

please note that there will be a form released for judges to fill out but you will not
receive any answers until after the tournament is well and truly concluded. Be
respectful of the Adjudication Core's time during the tournament itself.
 cknowledgement
A s
This concludes the Nepal Australs 2021 Judge Manual.
The Adjudication Core would like to acknowledge and
thank our sponsors, our advisors, our tab team and our
organising committee for all their hard work, support,
and contribution. We hope this Judge Manual elucidates
important points for judges to take note of and can only
hope it contributes in some way, shape or form, to the
development of judging quality and the betterment of
norms in Australasia and beyond.

#AbaPaloNepalKo

- Nepal Australs 2021 CAP

Banun, Wasif, Daniel, Grace, Nicolas, Rob, Uphie

E nd u a l
of M an