INTRODUCTION
The assessment made of any debate is inherently a subjective exercise. The adjudicator
forms a personal judgment regarding the argument, style, organization and impact of a
debate, which in many cases, could differ from that of another adjudicator’s. The
main objective in providing these guidelines is to ensure, as much as is possible, that
the adjudicators make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and guidelines that
direct attention to specific issues and thus help limit subjectivity.
The adjudicator’s role is crucial in the discipline of debating - with the divine
responsibility of sitting in judgment upon the efforts of debaters. As in any other
competitive activity, a thorough understanding of the rules is a prerequisite for the
referee and ensuring that these rules are consistently interpreted and applied becomes a
critical aspect of the competition.
In assessing debate, you have to adopt the role of an average reasonable person with an
average reasonable knowledge of the subject under debate but with expert knowledge of the
rules of the debate. Debating is an exercise in the skills of persuasion, where the target
audience is assumed to be an average cross-section of the community who is open to
persuasion. In this context, it is important that the adjudicator’s judgment is not
influenced by his or her personal likes and dislikes, prejudices or any other preconceived
opinions on issues. There is no denying that each adjudicator carries into the debate an
opinion baggage that could be based on personal experiences, expert knowledge of the
subject matter, or a set of prejudices. An element of the real test of a debater is, of
course, the ability to persuade the adjudicator of the validity of arguments advanced,
which may be in contradiction with the adjudicator’s views and perspective on the
matter under consideration. But you must be able to eliminate any special or exceptional
attitudes which would not be shared by an average group of reasonable people.
The most important thing to realize is that you are sitting in judgment on the relative
merits of the two cases that are proposed by the competing teams of the debate, and it is
this ability of comparison that assumes importance in adjudication.
It should be noted that the task of an adjudicator is not to decide whether his or her
views coincided with those expressed by one of the teams. The adjudicator has artificial
constraints that influence his decision - including the proportional worth of the elements
of matter, manner and method, and the weight of each individual
speech to the overall case of the team. The adjudicator is assessing a process that
consists of every single speech and his final judgment is a function of the contribution
of each individual in the debate.
There are three important functions performed by adjudicators in any debate:
- To decide which team has won
the debate,
- To provide an explanation of
the reasons for that decision, and
- To provide constructive
criticism and advice to the debaters.
The function of deciding which team has won is, of course, the most important function
that is played by the adjudicator. In this context, it is very important to note that the
decision is made by the adjudicator and not by the marks awarded. In other words, the
marks should reflect the adjudicator’s decision; they should not make that decision.
It is not rare in close debates to find the total marks awarded reflect a different
decision from the adjudicator’s impression of the debate and the relative merits and
demerits of the two cases under consideration. In such circumstances, you should review
the notes of the debate and attempt to identify the cause of this discrepancy. For
example, you might realize that your final impression was too heavily dependent on a
strong third speech, in which case your decision should be modified to reflect a correct
weighing for that speaker’s contribution in the overall context of the debate. Or,
you might realize that the marks awarded to a particular debater’s speech does not
reflect his true contribution to the advancement of his case. What is important to note is
that the marks and the adjudicator’s decision should be consistent and it is the
final decision should be consistent and it is the final decision of the adjudicator that
determines the outcome of the debate.
Debaters are entitled to know the basis of any judgment and you, as an adjudicator,
have the obligation to explain your decision and offer constructive criticism. What should
be highlighted in such discussion should be critical differences between the two teams and
no attempt should be made to replay the whole debate. Adjudicators should also be careful
of getting drawn into a further debate with the team members as to the merits of the
judgment. While explaining the reasons for the decision, you should be specific in
weighing the relative merits of the cases and the important elements of the cases that
were crucial in determining your verdict. These issues will be handled in detail later
when assessment of the debates are discussed in terms of matter, manner and method.
It should be remembered that the level of explanation provided should be tailored to
the experience of the debaters. Very experienced speakers are likely to be concerned with
the interaction of argument and the structure of team cases; novices are likely to wish to
receive more detailed comment on speaking style, merging into the ‘constructive
criticism’ discussed below.
Not every individual has the ability to inspire and motivate. But all adjudicators do
have a tremendous responsibility in ensuring that their judgment and criticism and advice
that they give perform an educational function in debating. Sound advice from good
adjudicators make substantial differences to debating careers. As pointed out earlier, the
nature of advice offered should vary with the experience of the debaters. Criticism should
invariably be delivered in constructive terms. To a novice speaker for whom the debate
itself may have been a traumatic event, there is a world of difference between "The
things that you did badly were...." and "The ways in which to improve your
debating are....". No adjudication should be scathing, sarcastic or derogatory. You
have an obligation to be constructive, supportive and encouraging.
ASSESSING MATTER
One of the fundamental aspects in assessing matter is that the matter presented by a
speaker must be logical and relevant to the topic under debate. Logic is the chain of
reasoning used to prove an argument. This involves stating, explaining and illustrating
the argument. Relevance is established by tying the argument in to the topic under debate.
An example that has been used at the Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championship at
Monash in 1995 illustrates the point about reasoning of arguments logically. The issue
under consideration in the example is that cigarette advertising should be banned. The
structure to a team’s case could be as follows:
- State an argument in favor of the topic: Cigarette advertising should be banned
because it entices young people to smoke by making cigarette smoking look like a glamorous
activity.
- Explain the argument: Young people see images of sports heroes and
models endorsing smoking. They are insecure and in need of some affirmation, so they turn
to cigarettes, assuming they will achieve the happiness they believe the sports heroes and
models enjoy. This is how they will get addicted.
- Use examples: Cigarette companies aggressively advertise in glamorous
sports like Formula One. Marlboro spends $50m a year to ensure that McLaren team can have
‘Marlboro’ plastered all over its livery. Their product is seen on the drivers
and models that parade around like advertising billboards trying to sell their products,
often to kids who are impressionable.
- Tie the argument back into the topic: So as you can see, cigarette
advertising entices young people into smoking by giving them glamorous images to aspire
to. Cigarette advertising is therefore dangerous and it should be banned.
Part of your function is to assess the quality of the argument. This requires you to
distinguish a strong argument from a weak argument, from the viewpoint of an average
reasonable person. A weak argument remains weak whether or not the opposing team points
out its weakness. You should not wait to see whether the opposition attacks an argument
before judging whether it is weak or strong. Taking on the role of an average reasonable
person does not prevent you from being critical and intelligent in your analysis of the
matter presented to you.
Use of examples and references to experts
Properly used, examples are an important aspect of matter. Usually they will be most
effective when used to illustrate or bolster an argument that has been constructed
already, rather than as the foundation for making an argument. Similarly, authorities
cited should only support the argument and not substitute the argument. The fact that an
expert holds an opinion holds minor weight in the process of persuasion unless the reasons
for that opinion are explained and independently assessed.
Invalid cases
An invalid case is where the team does not prove what they are required by the topic to
prove. For instance, on the topic ‘That cigarette advertising should be banned’,
if the affirmative team argues that smoking is harmful, they have not addressed the
fundamental issue of the debate - cigarette advertising. Such an approach should be
penalized heavily.
Hung cases
Sometimes, the structure of the argument is such that at the end of the first
speaker’s case, it is not possible to draw any conclusion. This is known as the
‘hung’ case. It occurs when the first speaker doesn’t affirm or negate the
topic in itself. The speech is left ‘hanging’ until the second speaker completes
the case. It is neither convincing to rely on another speaker to prove the entire case nor
fair to ask a first negative speaker to refute a case that is not complete yet. Therefore
such an approach should be penalized in both matter and method. An Australasian example
is, when on the topic That Capitalism will fail without religion, the first affirmative
argued that capitalism will fail and the second speaker argued that capitalism will fail
without religion. Here the second speaker was the only speaker to address the topic.
Distinguishing Matter from Manner and Method
In matter, you must assess the quality of the arguments irrespective of how well they
were organized. In method, you must assess the quality of organization. When assessing
matter, it is important to shed all the effects of manner, namely vocal style, use of
gesture and quality of oratory. You should understand and maintain this distinction and
prevent the same strength or weakness from being double-scored.
New Matter from third negative
New matter consists of an entirely new argument that has not been canvassed in the
debate before. Fresh evidence to support or further extend an argument is not considered
as new matter.
It is a firm rule of debating that the third opposition speaker in the debate may not
introduce any new matter. The purpose of this rule is to prevent unfairness in the debate
because an issue raised at this stage does not allow the opposing team to respond to it or
comment on it sufficiently. Hence, the final speaker’s argument must be directed to
issues that have already been raised in the debate. In general, new matter consists of
entirely new issues that have not previously been canvassed in the debate. Introduction of
new matter should result in penalties on both matter (as the speaker should be spending
time on rebuttal) and method (as the team should have organized and prioritized its
argument more effectively). The use of fresh examples to further illustrate an earlier
argument or any argument directed to rebuttal of an opposing argument or to defense of the
negative case is not new matter.
An example of new matter on a topic That UN is a waste of space is where the first five
speakers have been arguing the effectiveness of the UN as a peace keeper and peacemaker
and then the third negative decides to discuss at length the humanitarian arms of the
organization.
In this context, the rule is not so clear about new matter from the third affirmative.
It is a matter for discretion, where you should weigh the value of the matter as
substantial material against the detriment suffered by the team in not introducing this
earlier in the debate and possible time lost in rebuttal.
Humorous arguments
There are instances where one team adopts a humorous or ‘send-up’ approach
and the other team delivers a perfectly serious debate. In the former, you must assess
whether the ‘send-up’ has caused the audience to accept or reject the spirit of
high farce which pervades such cases. You should assess the ‘send-up’ in the
context of the ‘send-up’ reality. Then this is compared with the quality of
argument presented by the opposing team in its own context. The adoption of a humorous
line does not relieve the team of the necessity to structure its humorous line in the form
of an argument.
ASSESSING METHOD
Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each
individual speech, of the team case as a whole and the extent to which the team reacted
appropriately to the dynamics of the debate. Each of these three elements will be further
elaborated in the following paragraphs.
Method of an individual speech
An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither compulsory
nor exhaustive):
- an interesting opening which
captures the attention of the audience or helps it to warm to the speaker
- a reasonably clear statement
of the purpose and general direction of the speech
- a logical sequence of ideas
which shows a clear development of the speaker’s argument
- a proportional allocation of
time to the speech as a whole, and to each major point, which enables the objective of the
speech to be accomplished
- a conclusion or summary of the
major points made in the speech
Over-time and under-time speeches
Speakers should quickly finish the point they are making after the time limit and
conclude. A small leeway of no more than half a minute may be allowed. Matter delivered
after the time limit does not attract matter marks. The speech will incur a severe penalty
in method for continuing significantly after the time limit.
There usually is no penalty for finishing after the first bell but before the time
limit (unless the speaker was clearly ‘padding’ the speech in an attempt to make
time, without adding anything to the content of the speech). Finishing before the first
bell indicates poor organization and usually attracts a method penalty. But this should be
assessed with regard to the completeness or paucity of the argument and other aspects of
the debate such as whether the opposing team ran a truism and prevented rebuttal.
Method of the team
In considering team method, you are assessing whether the team structured its overall
approach to maximize its effectiveness and whether the individual speakers adequately
fulfilled their part in the team presentation. In general, a ‘thematic’ team
structure will be more effective than a structure consisting of a series of independent
arguments. The former approach gives the appearance of being a total body of argument
while the latter approach represents a series of isolated points without any link or
consistent foundation.
The roles played by each speaker in a team presentation are summarized as follows:
First affirmative speaker
- define the affirmative’s
interpretation of the topic and specify the essential issues in contention
- give an outline of the team
structure, indicating the basic theme of the team’s case and the aspects to be dealt
with by each speaker
- deal with those elements of
the case allocated to him or her
First negative speaker
- identify the major areas of
initial disagreement (including definition issues if appropriate) with the affirmative
case up to that time and engage in rebuttal
- give a clear outline of the
negative’s team structure
- deal with those elements
allocated to the first speaker
Second affirmative and negative speakers
- rebutt opponents’ case
and arguments
- argue in defense of one’s
own case against rebuttal by previous speaker
- deal with those elements of
the substantial case allocated to him or her
Third speakers on both sides
- present an overview of the
debate, rebutting the important aspects of the opposing team’s case and defending
one’s own team’s case
- summarize his or her arguments
Reply speeches
- provide an overview that
compares and contrasts each team’s views of the central issues of contention in the
debate
Response to the dynamics of the debate
This element of method requires you to assess whether a speaker has reacted
appropriately to the strategic requirements of the debate as they emerged. The following
are examples of such dynamics:
When a negative team has a problem with the affirmative definition, it is important
strategically to deal with this at the first negative speech (as well as the second and
third) so that the definition does not proceed without dispute until much later.
A method failure results when a speaker argues a point that has already been conceded
(thus failing to acknowledge the concession) or a point that is not being contested or
relevant to the debate.
In administering a method penalty, you should be careful to note the distinction
between matter and method. A speaker who commits a strategic error may be given full
credit for the quality of the argument in matter, but a penalty will be imposed in method.
On the other hand, if a speaker reacts appropriately to the dynamics of the debate, he or
she may be rewarded in both method (for identifying the issue) and matter (for
convincingly tackling it).
ASSESSING MANNER
Manner is concerned with the mechanics of public speaking and presentation of the
debating case. Good manner will enhance the argument; bad manner will distract or detract
the audience from the argument. The most important thing to remember when you assess
manner is to ask the question "Was it effective?".
The elements of manner:
Vocal style: Volume of delivery should be audible; enunciation should be clear
and plain; pace of delivery should be neither too slow nor too fast; vocal style should
have variety and appropriate pauses for relaxation and emphasis; delivery should be
reasonably fluent, confident and authoritative (but not arrogant or hectoring)
Use of language: Speakers should not vary from normal conversational language;
they should beware of the use of slang or jargon of some field of specialty unfamiliar to
the audience.
Use of notes: Notes should be unobtrusive, small enough to be held in one hand
and contain only key words or headlines.
Use of eyes: Debaters should attempt to make eye contact with the audience.
Gesture: Gestures should be natural and appropriate and not laborious or
distracting; mannerisms should be avoided.
Stance: Speakers may move around or stand still and you should assess the
effectiveness of the stance by whether it aided the argument or distracted you from the
argument.
Dress: Dress may only be taken into account in the assessment of manner where it
is so incongruous that it affects the credibility of the speaker.
Impression of sincerity: A more sincere approach will make the speaker more
believable and effective.
Personal attacks on opponents: Derogatory comments will not be tolerated and
will suffer manner penalty as such remarks distracts the audience from the argument and
also make the speaker lose the sympathetic ear of the audience; speakers should also not
refer to the personal convictions held by opposing debaters.
Humor: Humor should be appropriate and may even be used at a crucial time in a
serious debate.
Adjudicators must note that manner is assessed as the total impact of all its various
elements – not as some aggregation of fixed categories according to rigid weightings.
OTHER ISSUES
Definitions are an important aspect of a debate. They play a large role in determining
whether a debate is focused and enjoyable, or waywardly meandering and unclear.
Definition rules
Definitions must be reasonable. There must be a clear and logical link between the
definition and the topic. A negative team may only challenge a definition on the grounds
that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable. Squirreling and time
setting are absolutely prohibited.
Truistic, tautological and circular definitions are those that allow the affirmative
team to use indisputable truths as evidence, thereby not allowing the negative team to
dispute. For example, on the topic "That we should eat and drink and be merry",
if an affirmative team defined this topic to mean that we should eat something because
otherwise we will die of starvation, we should drink something because otherwise we will
die of thirst, and we should be happy because being sad is not a good thing, it leaves the
negative team with no grounds to debate on. Wholly unreasonable definitions are those
which seek to make the negative’s argument scarce or weak. Squirreling is where there
is a reasonably obvious issue to be debated and one team decides to define the debate in a
less than obvious way. An example would be, if on the topic "That Elvis is alive and
well", the affirmative defined Elvis to be Elvis Martini, an Italian hairdresser
known for his sideburn trims. The obvious issue for debate here is of course Elvis
Presley. When the debate is set into a particular time, it constitutes time setting.
Debates should take place in contemporary society though evidence from the past may
certainly be used in argument.
The correct approach to definition is the ‘issue-based’ approach, rather than
the ‘individual words’ approach. Many inexperienced debaters will give a careful
and detailed definition of each word in the topic, and then string those definitions
together into a sentence. It is of course frequently necessary to concentrate on one or
more keywords in a topic, but at least as frequently the topic may be defined as a whole
by looking at the context. Even with topics in which it may be deemed necessary to
consider the nature of an individual keyword, the ultimate objective of definition is to
be able to state a clear issue arising out of the examination of the individual words.
You must not start with any preconceived notion of the meaning of the topic (except to
the extent that the average reasonable person shares such a notion). Like all matter, you
should not wait to see if the definition is attacked before deciding whether or not it is
persuasive. The definition is assessed with its supporting arguments when it is delivered.
Competing definitions
When the negative challenges the definition put forth by the affirmative (on the
grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable), there is no
rule that says that the proposition’s definition is automatically invalid. It is just
that the affirmative faces the difficulty that an average reasonable person would regard
such a proposition as being unreasonable and unlikely to be what was in the mind of the
person who set the topic. But the onus is on the disagreeing team to show that the
unreasonable definition is heavily biased against their case and cannot be argued against.
It is not enough to utter protests that would become a copy of self-pity. The issue is to
be resolved by argument. The speakers must argue the relative merits of the competing
definitions, not merely assert the merits of their own.
The definition issue is not decisive of the outcome, and the team that loses the
definition issue will still have its subsequent arguments assessed on their own merits.
When there is a significant divergence of definitions, you should expect teams to engage
in an 'even-if' argument. That is:
"Our definition is correct and theirs is incorrect for the following reasons. But
even if their definition was correct (which it is not), their case does not stand scrutiny
even under their own definition."
This should be followed by an attack on the merits of their opponent's case. In this
way, a team is likely to score more matter marks, and the sterility of the definition
debate is avoided. This issue is important enough for the absence of an 'even-if' to be
penalized in method as a strategic error, if the competing definitions are widely
divergent.
Rebuttal
Rebuttal is any argument that logically tends to the conclusion that the opposing
team's arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist
of:
- showing that the opposing
argument is based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact
- showing that the opposing
argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic
- showing that the opposing
argument is illogical
- showing that the opposing
argument, while itself correct, involves unacceptable implications
- showing that the opposing
argument, while itself correct, should be accorded little weight
Matter marks should be used to indicate whether or not the rebuttal was persuasive,
irrespective of the structure of the rebuttal. On the other hand, whether or not a speaker
has structured the rebuttal so as to make it appear that the entire opposing case, or at
least the main issues, has been called into question is an issue of method marks.
Sometimes, a more global and thematic rebuttal is adopted over a point-by-point rebuttal
of the opposition’s arguments. It is a simple case of focusing on the forest as a
whole rather than the trees.
Reply speeches
You must understand the difference between the third speeches and the reply speeches.
The replies are not merely tedious repetitions of the key parts of the third speeches. The
third speakers should concentrate on detailed rebuttal and leave the summarizing to the
reply speakers. The third negative should be especially cautious not to give anything more
than a cursory summary at the end if his or her speech because a detailed summary is about
to ensue from the reply. Third speakers who embark on extensive overviews and summaries
(especially third negatives) should generally score lower marks in matter (for forgoing
the opportunity to engage in detailed rebuttal of points) and method (for misunderstanding
the role of the third speaker).
The ‘no new matter’ rule applies with a vengeance in reply speeches. To
introduce new matter in a reply is a cardinal sin. It misconceives the role of a reply
speech, which is a broad overview and not an examination of detail. New matter in a reply
speech should be heavily penalized.
Misrepresentations
Misrepresentations are where one speaker inaccurately sets up an argument in order to
attack it. This is a serious offense and should be penalized as it often happens during
the third speeches and leaves the opposing team little chance to reply. Misrepresentation
occurs when one speaker reiterates an opponent’s argument incorrectly or concentrates
disproportionately on weaker aspects of the opposing argument, neglecting important
issues. Be cautious when assessing misrepresentation to go through your notes and to rely
less on memory. It is therefore essential that the information you record during each
speech is comprehensive.
Team slides
A team slide is when a team starts off arguing a theme and then widens or narrows that
theme under pressure from an opponent or in order to claim the matter being used by the
opponents. This is unreasonable. You should pay extra attention during the first few
minutes of the first speeches from both sides so that you are able to identify a team
slide later in the debate. Team slides should be distinguished from concessions that, if
not too substantial, will allow the debate to proceed on the contentious ground. For
instance, it would not be an unreasonable concession for a negative team to concede, on
the topic, That smoking should be banned, that there is a recognized link between smoking
and disease. Such a concession would allow the debate to proceed upon the more contentious
issues surrounding prohibition.
Ties
Ties must not be awarded in the tournament. There is no exception to this rule.
MARKING SCALE
Substantive speeches
Substantive speeches are marked out of 100
- the average mark is 75
- the lowest possible mark is 67
and the highest possible mark is 83
- most marks will be between 70
and 80
- matter and manner are marked
out of 40, method out of 20
Reply speeches
Exactly half of the substantive speeches
- the average mark is 37.5
- the lowest possible mark is
33.5 and the highest possible mark is 41.5
- most marks will be between 35
and 40
- matter and manner are marked
out of 20, method out of 10
| Matter and Manner |
Method |
Meaning |
| 27 |
13 |
Very poor |
| 28-29 |
14 |
Below average - Poor |
| 30 |
15 |
Average |
| 31-32 |
16 |
Above average - Very Good |
| 33 |
17 |
Excellent |
| Margin in points |
Meaning |
| 1-4 |
A very close debate with only
minor differences separating both teams |
| 5-9 |
A relatively clear decision
with one team having an obvious advantage |
| 10-12 |
A very clear win with the
losing team probably having failed in one or more fundamental aspects of its argument or
presentation |
CONCLUSION
You should give a clear and firm decision of who has won, the reasons for that
decision, and constructive comments to each speaker. A summary of the decisive issues in
the debate and how each team dealt with or used these issues to their advantage or
disadvantage may be in order here. Constructive comments made to each speaker should be
brief and positive, especially to those who have not debated much before. You have around
5-7 minutes to deliver your adjudication and comments.
