Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nudc 2018 Judge Briefing
Nudc 2018 Judge Briefing
Nudc 2018 Judge Briefing
2018
JUDGE BRIEFING
Why are we doing this?
Some judges might be familiar with adjudicating in other formats than BP. It is
important to recalibrate their orientation as BP judging is uniquely different and
should be assessed with a different benchmark.
I. How to Adjudicate
II. Oral Adjudicate
III. Common Mistakes in Adjudication
IV. Scoring Standards
V. Conflict System
How to Adjudicate:
KNOWING YOUR ROLE
– Adjudicator assume the role of an globally informed voter. You must be informed, reasonable, and act as a voter.
– You must be a person who has average knowledge of the topic under debate but expertise knowledge of the rules
for competitive debating
– Not an expert on issues
– Read the news regularly
– Understand debating rules
– You must put logic and reason as your guide in assessing the debate.
– Open-minded
– Detach yourself from personal preferences (e.g.: religious beliefs, political affiliations, etc.)
– Your role is to act like a moderate voter deciding their stance on a proposed policy.
– Balance of information between two contrasting party
– Must be comparative towards all the information presented to you.
– IN SHORT, YOU MUST ADJUDICATE THE DEBATE THAT HAPPENS AND NOT THE ONE THAT YOU THOUGHT
SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
How to Adjudicate:
THE GENERAL PROCESS
You are a human being, not a parrot. Don’t just repeat what the teams have said!
Separate evaluation from constructive feedback.
Remember that your decision matters to the debaters and your own final
accreditation!
Oral Adjudication:
WHAT SHOULD BE IN ONE
1. Brief general commentaries on the round
2. Result of the round (the ranking of the teams)
3. The justification of each ranking
– Judges may choose to individually assess each team’s performance, or provide
a direct comparison between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd, & 3rd and 4th. Just keep in
mind that either way, comparatives must be made.
– Judges should be balanced in their justification– they must show which good
things teams brought made them persuaded and which bad things made them
not. Be fair in your assessment!
Common Mistakes in Adjudication
(chair signature)
Scoring Standards:
SCORING THE JUDGES
• 1-4 is Trainee quality
• 5-7 is Panel quality
• 8-10 is Chair quality
– Conflicts of Interest is the condition in which judges’ objectivity might be compromised because they are
judging a team/speaker that they have a unique relationship with.
– Judges must declare their conflicts during the accreditation. If new conflicts arise, or some have been
missed, please notify the Adjudication Core at once.
Q&A