Monash Training Handbook

Adjudicating 3-on-3 Debating

The adjudicator has three functions:
1. to decide which team has won the debate;
2. to provide an explanation of the reasons for the decision; and
3. to provide constructive feedback to the debaters.

The Role of the Adjudicator

By Ray DCruz et.al, from The Australia-Asia Debating Guide
The adjudicator adopts the role of an average reasonable person, who has the
average reasonable persons knowledge of the topic but who, unlike the average
reasonable person, has expert knowledge of the rules of debate.
Adjudicators must eliminate any preconceived ideas as to the merits of the issue
in debate, and any expert or special knowledge of the subject matter. The
average reasonable person is assumed to be intelligent and capable of
assessing flaws in arguments; the adjudicator is invested with these qualities.
The assumption of this artificial role is one of the most difficult aspects of
adjudication, and imposes a heavy burden on adjudicators. Nonetheless, it is
central to the whole notion of adjudication. The alternative of permitting
adjudicators to assess a debate from their own personal viewpoint, and to take
into account their own expert knowledge, prejudices and preconceptions, would
strike at the heart of debating as an exercise in the skills of persuasion.

Taking Notes

By Ray DCruz op cit.

Note taking is important because notes allow an adjudicator to resolve issues
which emerge later in the debate, for instance, where there is a dispute over the
definition of certain terms. Adjudicators must be wary not to enter the debate
while making notes by filtering the comments made by speakers. For example, a
speaker may provide an argument which has no clear link to the topic. The
adjudicator may infer a link and record this inference in their notes, later
crediting the speaker with having made the link.
Adjudicators should mark the scores of the speakers as the debate proceeds.
Leaving the marking of scores to the end of the debate can be a perilous
exercise in recalling the matter, method and manner of earlier speakers. It may
result in the adjudicator overemphasising the impact of third speakers.

Reaching a Decision
3-on-3 debates are technically scored on the three categories of Matter (40%),
Manner (40%) and Method (20%). The aim of the adjudicator should be to award
the result to the team that is the most persuasive, the team that presents the
most persuasive matter, with the most persuasive manner and arranged with
the most persuasive 26

method. The debate should be awarded holistically, with an awareness of how

the teams performed in all three categories.
There are a number of different strategies that can be used to help reach a
decision.
The first is to assess both your gut feeling at the end of the debate and the sum
total of your indicative speaker scores. If these align, try and identify the
reasons why you believe that a particular team won, with reference to their
matter, manner and method.
The second approach, and most common in cases where teams are evenly
matched, is to go through the debate issue by issue and establish which team
won the major issues of the debate. In this case the adjudicator is effectively
acting like a third speaker identifying the themes of the debate and then within
those working out who won and why. This approach tends to intrinsically favour
matter above manner and method. However, it can then be followed by an
assessment of the manner and method of the teams. For example, if on
examination of the issues the negative team had a slight advantage, but the
affirmative was definitely stronger on manner and method, it would then be
appropriate to grant the debate to the affirmative.

Deciding the Margin

By Ray DCruz, op. cit.
The following guidelines should help adjudicators decide the margins by which
teams
win or lose debates:
Margin 14 points: a very close debate, with only minor differences separating
the
two teams.
Margin 59 points: a relatively clear decision, with one team having an obvious
advantage.
Margin 10+ points: a very clear win, with the losing team probably having
failed
in one or more fundamental aspects of its argument or presentation.

Speaker Scores

While the range varies somewhat from tournament to tournament, all

competitions MAD participates in are based on a 100 point scale, where 75
points is an average speech.
It is common for the average speech to be defined as being the average speech
at a particular tournament. Thus the standard of a 75 at Australs will be
significantly higher than that expected for a 75 at a novice competition such as
Freshers.
For reference, below is an
interpretation of the meaning of
scores as suggested by the
adjudication core of the 2010 World
University Debating Championships.
27
Interpretation

Score
81

79-80

78

77

76

75
74

Plausibly one of the best debating

speeches ever given, flawless and
astonishingly compelling in every
regard. It is incredibly difficult to think
up satisfactory responses to any of the
arguments made.
Brilliant arguments successfully
engage with the main issues in the
round. Arguments are very wellexplained, always central to the case
being advocated, and demand
extremely sophisticated responses.
The speech is very clear and incredibly
compelling. Structure and role
fulfillment are executed flawlessly.
Very good, central arguments engage
well with the most important issues on
the table and are highly compelling;
sophisticated responses would be
required to refute them. Delivery is
clear and very persuasive. Role
fulfillment and structure probably
flawless.
Relevant and pertinent arguments
address key issues in the round with
sufficient explanation. The speech is
clear in almost its entirety, and holds
ones attention persuasively. Role is
well-fulfilled and structure is unlikely
to be problematic.
Arguments are almost exclusively
relevant, and frequently persuasive.
Occasionally, but not often, the
speaker may slip into: i) deficits in
explanation, ii) simplistic
argumentation vulnerable to
competent responses or iii) peripheral
or irrelevant arguments. The speaker
holds ones attention, provides clear
structure, and successfully fulfills their
basic role on the table.
Average.
Arguments are generally relevant, and
some explanation of them given, but
there may be obvious gaps in logic,
multiple points of peripheral or
irrelevant material and simplistic
argumentation. The speaker mostly
holds the audiences attention and is

73

72

71

69-70

usually clear, but rarely compelling,

and may sometimes be difficult to
follow. There is a decent but
incomplete attempt to fulfill ones role
on the table, and structure may be
imperfectly delivered.
Relevant arguments are frequently
made, but with very rudimentary
explanation. The speaker is clear
enough to be understood the vast
majority of the time, but this may be
difficult and/or unrewarding. Structure
poor; poor attempt to fulfill role.
The speaker is often relevant, but
rarely makes full arguments.
Frequently unclear and confusing;
really problematic structure/lack
thereof; some awareness of role.
The speech rarely makes relevant
claims, only occasionally formulated
as arguments. Hard to follow, little/no
structure; no evident awareness of
role.
Content is almost never relevant, and
is both confusing and confused. No
structure or fulfillment of role is, in any
meaningful sense, provided.

Comprehensive Adj Guide

Taking Notes: Rewinding the Tape
Adjudicators should maintain detailed notes during the debate. Notes should be
taken in such a way that a glance over the notes reminds the adjudicators as how
every speech and the whole debate progressed. By looking at the notes, one should
be able to rerun the debate in his/her mind. I call it visualizing the debate once
again after it is over. This is not to say that the adjudicators should take tens of
pages of notes only to find that they never have the time to look at them before
they have to decide, or never have the time to appreciate the beauty of the speech
by looking at the debater and enjoy his/her presentation. But as I said, it should be
enough to rerun the debate in your mind.
I found one practice very helpful and that is to make my own remarks at the end of
every speech regarding the debaters performance. Remarks like reads too much
from notes, did an excellent job in dealing with a particular issue e.g. fairness, or
fails to address a particular issue e.g. fairness which is the main argument of the
other team the questions he /she raised that I expect the next debater to answer,
the questions he/she failed to answer that were raised by the previous debater.
Before a speech, one may note down the issues or questions that one expects the
debater to address. These are not issues that I think are important, rather these are

issues that the previous debater has raised. These methods are every persons own.
I have seen lot of adjudicators using pens of different colours to take a special note
of things they want to remember. These remarks, colouring etc provide an
explanation behind the interim marks and help adjudicators rerun the debate when
needed.

Adjudicating Debates as the Average Reasonable Person

The adjudicator enters the debate chamber as an average reasonable person. An
average reasonable person is a fairly well-informed citizen of the globe with an
average understanding of global and regional issues, and a basic understanding of
popular disciplines and logic. The adjudicator must set aside his/her exceptional
personal preferences, experiences, opinions or expert knowledge, which will not be
shared by an average reasonable person. An adjudicator is supposed to be a jack-ofall-trades and master of none.
However the adjudicator is an expert in terms of the rules of debate. Adjudicators
(often being ex debaters) tend to analyse the argument by pin pointing the possible
weaknesses of it, as the opposing team would do it. This sometimes will be seen as
entering into the debate (discussed afterwards). Adjudicators must strictly avoid
this. The adjudicators should merely determine whether the arguments are
convincing in the eyes of an average reasonable person. An interesting observation
in this respect is that an average reasonable person is more easily convinced than a
debater, because he is open to be convinced. Generally an average reasonable
person is equally easily convinced otherwise when the merits of the opposing side
are pointed out. Adjudicators should avoid coming in between this process of the
teams trying to convince the average reasonable person by bringing their own
views of what is weak or what is strong unless it is obviously so.

Assessing the Strength of an Argument vs. Entering into the Debate

The most obvious instance of adjudicators entering into the debates is when
adjudicators bring in their expert knowledge or preferences into the debate. They
also enter into the debate if they build the arguments for the teams. Adjudicators
should not supplement an unclear or ill developed argument with their additional
explanation. However, the adjudicators task is to assess the arguments strength.
He should point out the weaknesses that an average reasonable person will
observe. He should not go beyond that and assume the duty of finding faults on
behalf of the opposing teams. In this case he can be seen as entering into the
debate.

Take a very tricky example (real). The debate is about genetic engineering of crops.
The government team argued that the third world does not have proper bodies that
can regulate the growth of genetically engineered crops. The opposition team
ignored the argument. The adjudicator in the verdict stated that he finds the
argument not convincing because as an average reasonable person he would know
that in third world countries there is the ministry of agriculture that can regulate. If
this was to be raised by the opposing team, then the government team could have
responded with the issue of ineffectiveness of and corruption in third world
ministries. I also ponder whether the average reasonable person knows how
efficient/ corrupt the third world ministries are. At the end, I concluded that in this
debate the adjudicator has either entered the debate or has only considered half of
the average reasonable persons knowledge (that there is the ministry of
agriculture, since the adjudicator ignored the fact of ineffectiveness of the third
world ministries). In any case the adjudicator was methodologically wrong. The best
practice in these cases will be to let the teams fight out what is right or more
convincing and for the adjudicators not to bring issues unless the teams themselves
pick it up. As I said the average reasonable person will not look for faults, but will
mark one when it is made obvious.

Basics of Adjudication: Matter, Manner & Method

Debates are generally judged on the basis of matter (40), manner (40) and method
(20). In Worlds the categories are matter and manner while method is included
within the two.
Assessing Matter
Matter includes:
i)
Definition
- set up of the case, burden of proof etc.
ii)
Arguments
- Key statement, explanation, analogy, examples, evidences etc.
iii)
Rebuttals
- Key statement, explanation, analogy, examples, evidences etc.
The adjudicators should look at all these aspects of matter and give the appropriate
score to the debater.
First, Definition
A summary of the rules of definition for is as follows:
a) The definition should be reasonable: The definition should be reasonable
and should state the issue or issues arising out of the motion to be debated,
meaning of any terms in the motion requiring clarification and display clear

and logical links to the wording and spirit of the motion. Thus a definition is
unreasonable when it displays no clear link with the topic or it involves a
misinterpretation of the words or the spirit of the motion. A definition is also
unreasonable if it employs overly specific knowledge or runs counter to the
resolution.
There must be a clear and logical link between the motion and the definition.
For example, consider the motion This house supports affirmative action.
The Government defines affirmative action to mean supporting a
"disadvantaged" group. This group, according to the Government, should not
be limited to just humans. The Government then argues that in the animal
world, some species are endangered and therefore can be considered
"disadvantaged" because of their low numbers. A prime example of this are
the whales which are hunted and killed by Japanese whalers. Then the
context in which the Government set the debate is that the UN should
impose economic sanctions on Japan for its whaling activity". To propose a
definition that is only remotely linked to the motion such as this is called
"squirelling". This is strictly prohibited, and such definitions can be
challenged by the Opposition.
The definition should not incorporate overly specific knowledge. It is
unreasonable if the Government proposes a definition that includes topics
which are outside that of the range of a typical well-read university student.
In other words, the definition must be limited to topics which the Opposition
can be reasonably expected to debate and must not depend on a detailed
understanding of specific facts which may not be available to the general
public.
The definition should not run counter to resolution. At times, due to lack of
understanding of the topic or even intentionally, Government teams end up
taking the Oppositions case. An example of such a definition is the motion
that Human rights is but a song and dance where the Government defined
the word but to mean not and started arguing that human rights is a
serious thing and not a song and dance. The Opposition also argued in the
same way that human rights are important. This definition is certainly against
the spirit of the motion.
There could be other instances of unreasonableness of a definition. Thus the
Government teams should not stretch the definition to an extent that a good
majority of adjudicators find in unreasonable to some degree. By doing so the
Government takes the risk of being challenged by the opposition and
adjudicators giving low score to them for a bad definition.
b) The definition must not be truistic or tautological. A truistic definition is
one which cannot be rationally opposed. If the Government were to define
the motion "This House believes that fighting fire with fire is justified" to
mean that there is justification in one's killing of another person in selfdefence when the latter is threatening his/her life, the Opposition may
successfully challenge the case as truistic. This is because no reasonable
person can or should be expected to advocate otherwise. A tautological

definition is one that proves itself by the very meaning and set up given to
the topic.
c) The definition must not employ time/place setting. The Government
may not set the time or place of the debate unfairly. However the
Government can bring the debate to a well known issue which, in effect,
narrows the debate down to a region or country to be the centre of the
debate. In this case it will not be seen as an unreasonable place setting. For
example if the Government defines the motion "This House believes that
fighting fire with fire is justified" as military intervention in the Middle-East
Conflict, the definition is fine. The criterion to judge a time/place set definition
is that of an average reasonable person. The government can not narrow
down the scope of the debate in terms of time and place in such a way that
an average reasonable person is not expected to know or be able to debate
the motion as defined.
A good definition explains the key words of the topic, irons out the
issues/contentions of the debate and identifies the burden of proof following the
rules stated above.
Second, Arguments
An argument has a basic statement. Then it is followed by logical analysis and
explanations as to why the basic statement stands. Evidences are adduced to
substantiate the analysis. An argument is often concluded by linking back to the
burden of proof or the basic contention under the topic.
The adjudicators should assess whether the arguments were developed sufficiently
to meet the above requirements. Questions that adjudicators generally ask are: did
the debater discharge his burden of proof, did the arguments logically prove his
contention, did he demonstrate good understanding of the major issues and relate
smaller points to them, etc?
The adjudicators should assess the strength of an argument regardless of whether
the opposing team addresses it or not. A weak argument is a weak argument
irrespective of whether the other team points it out or not. However, if an important
argument of a team is plainly weak, an opposing team is equally guilty, if not more,
if they do not address it. To me the opposing team is even more to be blamed for
letting the team get away with a weak argument. If the opposing team points out
that an argument is weak, the team has an opportunity to defend, but if the
adjudicator says so, they have no chance to defend. Therefore, the adjudicators
should treat an argument as weak only when it is plainly weak to an average
reasonable person. The adjudicators, at the same time, should equally fault the
opposing team on at least method (may include matter as well) for not addressing
it.
Third, Rebuttals

The rebuttals are similar to arguments. Arguments are to prove a claim whereas
rebuttals are to disprove the validity of that argument or claim. Thus good rebuttals
will also, generally, have a basic statement, explanation, analysis and supporting
evidences. A team does not have to rebut each and every example introduced by
the other team. Instead they should rebut the fundamental logic of the argument or
the case and raise possible objections to the proposal (if any).
Assessing Manner
Following are elements of manner: respectable attitude towards the judges and the
other team, vocal style: volume, clarity, pace, intonation etc, appropriate use of
notes, eye contact, body language, hand gestures, impression of sincerity, humour,
wit, appropriate sarcasm.
Assessing manner is very subjective. Some adjudicators like aggressive debaters,
while many others like the calm ones. One important thing that adjudicators should
remember is that there is no one best way to debate; there is no difference between
an aggressive and forceful debater and one who is calm and understated if both are
able to demonstrate the ability to persuade and hold the attention of the
adjudicators. Notwithstanding this, there is however a limit to the degree of
acceptable "manner" - neither an overly aggressive nor a too understated debater
will score many points. Dress is not part of manner (to the surprise of the many
traditional adjudicators!). The debaters should not be racist, sexist or plainly
offensive to person, or make derogatory remarks about other debaters in the
debate. These are also instances of bad manner.
The fundamental questions that decide the manner score, generally, are: is the
speech persuasive, is he/she able to maintain the audiences attention, is his/her
speech clear and perhaps many others.
Assessing Method
Method consists of three elements: a) organisation of the teams case, b)
organisation of individual speeches, c) responses of the team to the dynamics of the
debate.
First, Organisation of the Teams Case
To assess team method the adjudicators consider whether the teams overall
organization of arguments is effective to prove the case in contention. The
adjudicators should also look at the continuity of the teams theme in all speeches,
consistency among all debaters (no contradictions), reinforcement of team
members' arguments, clear & logical separation between arguments.
I have seen many teams, even good ones, developing the substantial materials late
in the debate. These materials are sometimes introduced only by passing in earlier
speeches and then the third speaker develops so substantially that it sounds like a
very strong argument at the end. Some teams do it as a strategy (!). It is a sneaky

way of trying to win a debate. The adjudicators must be careful about these
instances. It also happens that many of the substantial arguments of the
government team are only rebutted in the 3 rd negative speech. It is completely
unacceptable. The team should not only suffer considerably in method marks, but
earlier speeches of this team should also suffer matter marks as they did not
address substantial matter introduced in the debate during their speeches.
The best team strategy is to put the best arguments on the table at the very
beginning of the debate and not even leave them to the 2 nd speaker. Similarly the
opposition team should start addressing them head on from the very first speech. A
debate should have strong clashes right from the first speech of the opposition. A
good example of such a debate is the Grand Final of Worlds 94 (There are many
others, but this is perhaps one which is easily available on tape).
Second, Organisation of the Individual Speeches
A model individual speech will have the following elements: a) Statements
regarding definition/ theme/ burden of proof / quick overview, b) Rebuttals: rebuttals
of the arguments as well as rebuttals of the rebuttals, c) Presentation of arguments,
and c) concluding summary. These elements in general should be present in all the
speeches. However, some specific speeches will have some differing elements. For
example, the Prime Minister will spend substantial amount of time (2 to 3 minutes)
setting up the definition which no other speaker will do unless the definition is
challenged. Similarly the whip speakers, i.e. third speakers in Asians/Australs and
fourth speaker in British Parliamentary debates, will not present any new argument
and will spend substantial amount of time on rebuttals. Reply speakers will bring an
overall comparison showing the strength of the arguments of one team over the
other. There is no reply speech in British Parliamentary debates, thus the reply
speakers role is generally accommodated within the whip speeches.
Individual structure should be assessed in terms of whether the speaker performs
the role expected of him/her effectively. Adjudicators will also look at time
management in the speech.
Third, Responses to the Dynamics
Debates do not always progress the way teams thought it would before they
entered the debate. At every point in the debate, some issues become of prime
focus and the core of the debate and some other issues initially thought of being
contentious become irrelevant or out of contention. Some times teams concede to
some of the issues and thus it does not make sense for the other team to spend
time developing them. Debaters should understand these progresses and dynamics
and respond accordingly and not just go ahead and speak as they planned during
their preparation time.
If a debater ignores the most important arguments of the earlier speaker and does
not rebut them he lacks dynamics and should thus score low in method, even
though he rebuts the minor arguments of the other side. It is possible that the

debater understands the issues well and addresses them but his/her responses are
weak. In this case he gets good score for method for understanding the dynamics of
the debate but scores low in matter for unconvincing responses or arguments.
Judging a Definition Debate: It is Merely a Technical Complexity
A definition debate is not necessarily difficult to decide, if you are aware of the
definitional rules. In a definition debate the adjudicators should first consider
whether the definition provided by the government passes the rules. If it does, the
conclusion is that the challenge made by the opposition is unjustified. If the
opposition leader cannot justify the challenge he has already lost the debate on one
count. But this alone will not settle the whole debate; the adjudicators still have to
look at the developments that take place after that. Adjudicators have to consider
how both teams argue out the case under each definition, or argue out the validity
or otherwise of the definitions. Adjudicators will also consider the even ifs
introduced by both teams when required and matter, manner method of teams as a
whole. Thus it is not merely who wins the issue of definitional challenge that
automatically decides the debate. Adjudicating a definition debate requires a careful
analysis of the definitional rule and the technical roles performed by all debaters of
both the teams.
Marking Points of Information
The debaters are advised to take at least two POIs during their speeches. All
debaters are advised to attempt to give POIs but they should not do so in a manner
disruptive to the debater holding the floor. What amounts to be disruptive is
subjective. However two clear examples are when a debater uses long and loud
sentences just to get the attention towards his/her attempt to give POIs (I have seen
it happen) or say if a debater stands up on a POI within few seconds after he has
been rejected. A 20 seconds waiting period before one stands up again is the rule of
the thumb
POIs are assessed on the basis of the threat they pose to the strength of the
argument of the debater and the value of its wit and humour. But the responses to
the POIs are judged on the basis of its logical and intellectual strength, promptness
and confidence in answering, and value of its wit and humour.
Marks for the POIs and responses to POIs should be incorporated within the marks of
the speech in various categories. For example if a debater is inactive in giving POIs
he may score less in method. Again if a debater gives a brilliant POI that kills an
argument instantly, he could be given additional matter marks for that.
It is relatively easy to mark the responses to POIs as the responses are made within
the speech and when it is being marked, whereas it is rather difficult to mark the
POIs. Because POIs are offered before or after the speech is marked. It is advisable
that the adjudicators look at the separate note they keep regarding POIs and add
into or deduct from their speech score as appropriate to reflect their offerings of
POIs. For example if a debater offers very good POIs after his/her speech is already
marked, his/her mark can be increased to reflect his/her activism in POIs. On the

other hand if a debater does not offer POIs or offers bad ones marks can be
deducted from his/her speech score. At the end, all the debaters score will not only
reflect how they performed in their speeches but also their POIs throughout the
debate.
Asian/Australasian Style Reply Speeches: the Biased Adjudication and the
Half Truth
Reply speeches are marked out of 50 (matter 20, manner 20, method 10). It is easy
to score a reply out of 100 and then divide by 2. A good reply speech is often a
biased adjudication. A good reply speech is the one that summarises the major
contentions of both the teams and provides a summary of argumentation that took
place during the course of the debate proving that one team has substantial edge
over the other. It incorporates the arguments and rebuttals of both the teams in
deducing a conclusive position.
Adjudicators should be careful regarding reply speeches as obviously a team, which
is losing the debate in some areas of contention, may and will choose to down play
or not even mention that those areas of contention exist. This is why one reply
speech on its own is only half the truth. Adjudicators should not be too nave into
believing that those were the only contentions, even though the other team fails to
point out areas of contentions where they have an advantage. However, two reply
speeches properly done should bring about the whole truth to the adjudicators.
Marking Scheme in the Context of Asian/Australasian Debate
Each substantive speech is marked out of 100 according to a detailed division as
follows and the reply speech is marked proportionately out of 50.
Total
Matter
Manner
Method
Over all

40
40
20
100

Min-Max
27-33
27-33
13-17
67-83

Av.
30
30
15
75

The score for an average speech is 75. The minimum for a debater is 67 and the
maximum is 83. These ranges of average, minimum and maximum vary depending
on the competition in context (Of course, marking scheme for Worlds is entirely
different). What is an average speech is very difficult to state. But I will safely say it
is a speech that fulfils the technical role of the debater, addresses the major issues
at hand to the satisfaction of an average reasonable person and is delivered with a
clear style of presentation. It may help the adjudicators if I mention here that during
the last few Asians the score of the Top Ten debaters of the tournaments have been
around 76.5 to 78. If we agree to take that as a standard to be followed giving a
debater 77 inevitably means that that speech is among the ten best speeches in
that round. Other information from the table above are clear. A speech should never
go above 83 or below 67. I have rarely seen a debater in Asians scoring 80 or above

(Not that these tournaments do not have great debaters, rather they have strictly
regulated adjudication standards). Thus when I give a speaker 78, I expect to see
him in the Grand Final. A score 76 or 77 will mean a quarter or semi finalists quality
of speech.
The Margin in the Context of Asian/Australasian Debate
Margin is the difference of the total score of the two teams. All Asians categorises
the win/loss of teams into three categories: close, clear and thrashing. A description
of these categories and the range of points within these categories are as follows:
Category
Close/
Marginal
Clear

Points
0.5-4

Thrashing

9-12

5-8

Description
A very close debate; only minor differences separating
the two teams.
A relatively clear decision, with one team having an
obvious advantage.
A very clear win, with the losing team failing on one or
more fundamental aspects of the debate.

Margin reflects a comparison of the two teams in the debate. Whereas the speakers
score reflect both a relative comparison of the teams speakers as well as an
absolute assessment of the speakers vis--vis expected standard in the competition.
It is perfectly possible to come up with a margin of lot more than 12 despite
marking the speeches within the range of 67-83. At the end of the debate the
adjudicator should decide how much margin is suitable for the debate then adjust
the speakers score accordingly. To adjust margin it is advisable that the
adjudicators bring the low scoring team up instead of bringing the high scoring
team down. This avoids victimising the excellent debaters meeting a weak team.
But of course a compromise can be drawn when appropriate.
Marking Scheme: Where do I start?
I apply a simple method for marking speeches during a debate. I am stating it here
for the benefit of those who would like to try it out. First give a score the Prime
Minister based on the above explanation of minimum, maximum and average. His
score will strongly draw upon the overall expectation from the whole tournament.
Then compare all other speeches using the Prime Ministers speech as the
benchmark. A comparison also should be made among all the speeches so that all
the speakers get a score that they deserve not only in comparison with the Prime
Minister but also in comparison with each other.
In my experience with lot of new adjudicators, I have found that when they assess a
speaker better than another, they immediately give the better speaker a score
substantially higher (2/3 points) than the earlier one. In this situation the difference
of score between the two teams might go beyond the margin limit (discussed later).
It is advisable to give both the speakers the same score if you are not sure which

one is better. And when you are confident that one is better than the other the
difference of score among them should not be a huge one, unless it has to be.
When Does the Opposition Have to Provide an Alternative?
Many times I have been asked this question, the opposition only criticised the
government and never provided an alternative, is that enough for them to win the
debate? The answer depends on the topic and progression of the debate. When the
debate involves a proposal by the government team to solve certain problem/issues
that both teams acknowledge, the opposition has, beside criticising the
governments proposal, the option of providing an alternative. If the opposition
chooses to provide alternative, the debate will be mostly about the comparison of
the two proposals. Whereas, if the opposition choose only to criticise the
governments proposal and not give an alternative, the following issues should be
considered to determine the responsibilities of both the teams:
1) The government teams burden was to propose a solution to a problem and
therefore for them to win they must prove that their proposal will solve the
problem or at least improve the situation,
2) By not providing a better alternative, the opposition chooses their burden to
be that the governments proposal will not solve the problem or improve the
condition or that the governments proposal has other dangerous implications
and thus should not be accepted.
3) Sometimes the opposition may end up, impliedly, defending the status quo
by arguing that by adopting the governments proposal the situation will be
worse.
Thus it is very much possible that an opposition very rightly opposes a model
without giving an alternative model of its own. At the end the adjudicators should
decide based on the burden of proof under the topic and how the teams have
discharged that. If the opposition has successfully negated the governments
proposal without providing an alternative they may still win the debate.
Oral Adjudication and Why the Debaters Complain
Reaching the right verdict is one thing and delivering the verdict in a convincing
manner is yet another. I have found, particularly in the context of the Asians, many
adjudicators reach the right verdict with perfectly right reasoning, but not able to
express their verdict like many others due to language difficulty. I would many times
get them to adjudicate important rounds but not make them chair or put them in a
position where they have to deliver the adjudication. This is to maintain the
confidence of the debaters in the adjudicators pool.
In delivering the oral adjudication do not replay the whole debate; teams already
know what they have said. Explain the main reason behind the decision. Most of the
time the losing team is more interested to know why they lost, than the winning

team trying out find out why they won. I prefer to focus on the losing teams
weaknesses and complement the decision with some of the strength of the winning
team. To win this debate, given the way the debate progressed, the government/
opposition needed to do However they failed to is a phrase that I often use in
explaining verdicts.
Adjudicators may also highlight the differences between the two teams in terms of
strength and weaknesses of the cases, technical strengths and weaknesses or
differences in matter, manner and method.
Many times teams complain not because they disagree with the verdict, rather they
do not agree with the reasons. Therefore adjudicators should be very careful in
giving their reasons for the decision. For example pointing out more weaknesses of
the winning team than the losing team will give a wrong impression. An adjudicator
should never say that team A did not reply to this argument introduced by team
B, unless he is very sure that they actually did not give any reply. It will be
upsetting for the team if they actually gave a reply to that argument even though it
could be very short and insufficient. The teams are generally happy if they see that
adjudicators actually paid attention to everything that they have said but it was just
not enough for them to win the debate instead of them feeling that they said many
things but the adjudicator did not understand or did not pay attention to it.
The End Process and Double Checks
Occasionally, adjudicators come up to situation where they think team A has won
but when they calculate all the marks it is another team that has higher. You have
to reconcile. Perhaps the interim marks do not reflect upon the whole debate and it
can and should be adjusted if your end impression is different. But one must be
careful about changing the interims marks and make sure that the end impression is
not just the impression from the last one or two speeches as they are still fresh in
mind. Thus adjudicators need to go through the notes and make a thorough
reconsideration in the light of the whole debate to reassign the marks. The bottom
line is you should not just add up the interim score and make the decision.
In my adjudication practice, after the end of the debate, I make a summary of
contentions, counter contentions, rebuttals, strengths and weaknesses in manner,
method and POIs for both/all the teams. It allows me to have a clear over view all
aspects of the team and it makes sure that I have not ignored anything that should
be noted. This summary of each team becomes a useful notes for oral adjudication.

Before finalizing the decision, adjudicators should always double check the
winner, margin, individual scores and total, and more importantly run
through the notes to make sure they have no oversight of an issue and that
they have considered each and every issue in the debate.
(I really like this article. By Shengwu Li)

What does a good judge believe?

Recently, I said to a friend that I would find it deeply unpersuasive if a team made a case
using the argument that homosexuality was immoral. She was surprised by this, and told
me that many debaters from her institution quite liked being judged by me, because they
thought that I would give credit to any argument, no matter how weird it was.
It is probably true that I am more receptive to novel arguments than the average debate
judge. In fact, I often have to resist the temptation to reward an argument simply because it
is novel and interesting. But I'd like to think that I'm not indifferent between (for instance) a
well-explained, internally consistent argument based on liberal principles, and an equally
well-explained, consistent argument based on fascist principles. So what gives?
Roughly speaking, good judges should act as intelligent, open-minded, neutral observers to
an argument, willing to be persuaded by either side. If judges hold extreme or unusual
views, or hold usual views with unusual intensity, they should try as hard as possible to
leave those convictions at the door and listen to arguments with a more moderate mindset.
They should be willing to have this internal monologue: "Much as I think that this argument
is not persuasive, that is in part because my views on this matter are unusually intense (or
unusually well-examined). Most reasonable people would be persuaded by this argument,
and I shouldn't let the bad luck of encountering me as a judge disadvantage the team that
made it."
However, that's not to say that judges should be tabula rasa, judging arguments based
purely on their formal properties, devoid of moral intuitions, or assessments of whether a
claim is persuasive. It may be that some debating formats operate like this; and it may be
that some debaters enjoy being judged like this. (It takes all sorts to make a world.) But
that's not how BP debating works - and not how it should work.
Here are a few reasons why: Firstly, almost no meaningful normative claims are purely
logical. (Non-philosophers often overestimate what is logically provable; that is, what can be
shown to follow from logical axioms.) If we are going to make meaningful normative claims
in debates (e.g., "We should invade Iran if it is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons" or
"We should provide for the sick, even when their illnesses result from their life choices) then
we are going to need to start from more than pure logic. If all starting points are treated
equally, then debaters will always be talking past one another. Debating will simply be a
game of identifying an internally consistent ethical position that justifies your beliefs - no
matter how morally repugnant that position is.
Second, there are plenty of logically valid arguments that are deeply unpersuasive.
Consider the following two arguments:
1a. Saving innocent lives at no large cost to ourselves is always morally required.
1b. This policy will save innocent lives at no large cost to ourselves.
C: Therefore we should enact this policy.
2a. Causing the deaths of innocents is always morally required.
2b. Enacting our counter-proposal will cause the deaths of innocents.
C: Therefore we should enact our counter-proposal.
These two arguments are formally identical, but I can't see any way for a judge to remain
neutral between the two without debating becoming some kind of bizarre performance art.
Third, having judges suppress all their moral intuitions makes the act of persuasion in
debating utterly unlike the act of persuasion in any other context. British Parliamentary

debating is not a purely formal activity like Chess or Go; it is meant to be a contest of skills
that come from real deliberative contexts. (Thus the term, parliamentary debating.) That
doesn't mean that it has to mimic those contexts in every particular; but it does have to
distill enough of the essential details to be a contest of persuasive skill - and it's not clear at
all what it means to persuade someone who has no starting intuitions.
So for debating to make sense as an activity, judges do need to be entitled to some moral
starting point. Being a fair judge doesn't mean being neutral between all possible moral
positions. What then should judges believe?
My thoughts on this are a bit more disorganised. I don't think anyone has yet written down,
publicly, in the context of BP debating, what judges should believe (or, to be precise, act as
though they believe, when judging debates).
So here it is: Judges should have a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal
position on most ethical issues. I use "liberal", not in the sense meaning "left-wing", but
rather in the sense that would describe most intelligent university-educated people in the
countries that we call "liberal democracies". By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption
could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, and that the judge should listen to
such arguments with an open mind.
What does such a moderate liberal judge believe? Here's a sketch: That judge has a strong
belief in the importance of certain kinds of human goods - freedom, happiness, life, etc though not a full theory about how trade-offs between these goods should be made, or a
precise conception of what the good life is. That judge has a moderate presumption in
favour of democracy, free speech, and equal treatment. That judge holds a defeasible
belief in Mill's harm principle; that is, insofar as an action affects just the actor, the judge
has a presumption against government action. That judge believes that important moral
questions should be resolved by reasoned deliberation, not appeals to unquestionable divine
authority. This is because a good judge is an open-minded individual of the sort likely to
think that debating is a worthwhile activity.
One important detail: A good judge does not think that the moral status of a policy is always
and fully determined by its consequences, at least when we use 'consequences' in the
narrow sense of meaning its effects on utility or human welfare. There aren't two types of
arguments, "practical" and "principled". The belief that all that matters is the sum of the
consequences - that is, weighing up the costs and benefits - is itself a moral principle, and a
contestable one at that. Rather, the judge does hold a defeasible presumption that the
(narrow) consequences of a policy are important, but also a defeasible presumption that
other dimensions of a policy (whether it is honest, fair, rights-respecting, etc) are also
important. (We may be able to use "consequences" in a richer sense that encompasses
many of these concerns, but that is an argument for another day.) Like most intelligent
persons who are not debaters, that judge is neither a full-fledged "consequentialist" nor a
full-fledged "deontologist" - but could, in principle, be persuaded to either side by sustained
and careful argument.
So there you have it: A very rough first sketch of what a good BP judge should believe, often
playing fast and loose with technical terms in philosophy that deserve a more careful
treatment. I certainly don't claim a monopoly on understanding what ethical starting point
good judges should have; but I'm trying to elucidate a folk wisdom that I imagine many
other experienced judges share to some degree. Maybe, for other debate circuits in other
cultures, there are other appropriate starting points. Perhaps a debate circuit between
Islamic scholars should have a very strong presumption in favour of the existence of God
and the moral authority of the Koran. And I'd really like to see the judging guidelines for
Medieval Theologian Parliamentary Debating. But debating as we know it has grown out of

an Enlightenment tradition that also produced the rest of modern liberalism, so (at least to
my understanding) that's where judges' presumptions should start.