Document Sample
Judging Powered By Docstoc
					                         Judging Karl Popper Debate

        General Guidelines: The Role of a Judge
    Education and not competition define the goals of the Karl Popper Debate Program. Though
debate is a competitive activity and you are expected to decide who won the debates you judge,
your primary responsibility is to educate the students and help promote the development of open
societies. For this reason, it is important to keep a set of general principles in mind at all times as you
judge Karl Popper Debates:
     Because all students can benefit from participating in the Karl Popper Debate Program, each
        deserves your equal concern and respect.
     Because the Karl Popper Debate Program is committed to encouraging the highest ethical
        standards in debate, the judges should at all times discourage unethical behavior on the part
        of anyone involved in the activity.
     Because the Karl Popper Debate Program is dedicated to developing the critical thinking skill
        of its participants, the judge should value content above delivery in making their decisions.
     Because debaters are expected to carefully select the evidence they present in the round,
        the more credibly evidence should prevail over a greater quantity of evidence having less
        probative force.
     Because a Karl Popper debate should be accessible to the average citizen of an open society,
        judges should encourage debaters to speak at a reasonable pace.
     Because the audience in a Karl Popper debate is not expected to have any special of
        knowledge of debate, the judge should encourage debaters to avoid jargon.
     Because a vote in favor of one team does not mean acceptance of that team’s position, the
        winning team in any debate should be the team which did the better debating in that round.
        Similarly, judges are expected as much as possible to set aside their personal biases when
        making their decisions.
     Because the ballot is for and foremost and instrument for educating the debaters, the judge
        should write ballots designed to inform and educate the teams debating in that round.
     Because judges are expected to bring into the round only the knowledge of the topic a
        reasonably well-informed individual would be expected to have, judges are expected to
        ignore whatever specialized knowledge they may have of the debate topic. When rendering
        a decision, the judge should only weigh the evidence produced in the round.
     Because it is important to avoid the appearance of impropriety, judges shall not judge
        debaters or speaker where a possible conflict of interest is possible. For example:
     A judge should not judge a team from the school (in the case of a local tournament) or
        country (in the case of an international tournament) his or she is representing;
     A judge should not judge a team or a debater he or she has previously coached.
        IDEA Judge Accreditation Standards
        International Debate Education Association Judge Accreditation Standards
        Not only are judges necessary for the practical functioning of any speech or debate event,
but they also make invaluable contributions as educators. In interacting with judges, students
become motivated to participate in speech and debate activities and to improve their speech and
debate skills. A judge, therefore, should remain aware that his or her role is not simply to decide a
winner or rank participants, but also to ensure that the experience is educational for all students.
Accordingly, judges should be familiar with the protocol for judging particular events, and always
remain cognizant of proper judging behavior. For detailed procedures regarding the judging of
specific events, please refer to the sections related to those events in the IDEA Rules of Events.
         I. The minimum standards for the local accreditation of judges are that they: • are listed in
Debate Tracker • have 10 rounds of judging experience, recorded in Debate Tracker • have
participated in an IDEA sanctioned training of judges • have successfully completing a training
seminar which included the judging of an actual round and the offering of proper feedback to the
         II. Basic Judging Behavior During a speech or debate event, judges acts as impartial
observers, and as such it is essential that they practice professional conduct and maintain a dignified
bearing. By the same token, judges should encourage a positive atmosphere before, during, and
after a round, and should project support for all students. Overall, judges should adhere to the
following basic guidelines:
         A. A judge must be punctual in arriving for a round. A judge must arrive on time for the
round over which he or she is to preside. He or she should be diligent in determining whether he or
she appears on the schematic and should remain aware of a tournament’s schedule and rules and
when rounds are to occur. A judge should know the layout of the tournament’s location so as not to
arrive late to a round. A judge should determine if a tournament will provide ballots at the round, or
if he or she must procure ballots before the round. In all cases, judges should be accessible between
rounds, in case they are needed to judge additional events.
         B. A judge must not preside over rounds in which there is a conflict of interest. Judges
should not judge debaters when a possible conflict of interest could create the appearance of
impropriety. Accordingly, a judge should not judge a team or student from the school (in the case of
a local tournament) or country (in the case of an international tournament) that they represent. She
or he should not judge a team or a student whom they have previously coached. Moreover, when
interacting with students, a judge should be sensitive to appearances. While he or she should be
engaging and friendly, favoring any one student in a way that may give the student the wrong
impression (or discourage the student’s peers) should be avoided. Finally, in most circumstances
(and particularly before elimination rounds), a judge shall not judge the same student or team twice,
and should consult with tournament administrators if they are scheduled to do so.
         C. A judge must facilitate a respectful atmosphere during the event they judge. All
participating students have the right to a respectful, supportive environment in which they can be
heard. To this end, judges should inform all audience members to remain quiet and refrain from
inappropriate behavior, such as answering mobile phones, talking, or signaling teammates who are
competing. If necessary, judges should reprimand anyone who is disruptive (either prior to the
round or once the round has begun).
         D. A judge must maintain a respectful demeanor. It is imperative that a judge maintains a
respectful, attentive, and mature bearing throughout a round. Judges must demonstrate that they
are fully engaged with what the students are saying, both by adopting a listening, observant posture,
and by taking notes. Likewise, during a round, judges must assume an encouraging, supportive, and
non-threatening manner. A judge should not compromise his or her integrity through the sending of
“signals” – whether positive or negative – that unnecessarily insert the judge into the round.
         E. A judge must take notes actively during the event they judge. Taking notes, or "flowing,"
during a round is not only an excellent way for a judge to show speakers that he or she is engaged,
but is also a necessary part of making a fair decision, and can aid immensely in composing the ballot.
If a judge does not take notes during a debate event, it will be difficult for him or her to keep track of
arguments as they are made. Likewise, when rankings are composed at the end of a long round,
noting the salient characteristics of each speaker’s performance can help a judge differentiate
between speakers.
         F. A judge should ensure the proper timing of a round. In order to guarantee a fair event for
all participants, a judge must ensure the proper timing of the round. This is not to say that a judge
must personally keep track of time; this duty may be delegated to a spectator (ideally someone not
affiliated with any of the participants). Typically, the judge or timekeeper indicates the time
remaining in a section by holding up the appropriate number of fingers (three fingers indicating
three minutes remaining, and so forth). When 30 seconds remain in a round, the timekeeper will
indicate this by closing his or her hand halfway. When time is exhausted, the timekeeper forms a fist.
It is not necessary for the signal to be held aloft constantly; however, the signal should be held up
until the speaker sees it. A speaker is not required to stop in mid-sentence if the stop signal is given.
However, the speaker is not free to simply disregard the signal. If he or she continues excessively (in
a debate event, this means beginning a new point; in a speech event, this means proceeding without
closure), a judge should ignore what was said after the stop signal, and note the error on the
speaker’s ballot. This error may be weighed as a factor in making a decision. Finally, if the event
being judged involves the allocation of preparation time, a judge must ensure that this time is also
carefully tracked and announced, either by the delegated timekeeper or by the judge.
         G. If appropriate to the tournament and event, a judge should provide a brief judging
philosophy and judge consistently with it.
         III. Making Decisions, Writing Ballots, and Offering Commentary The process by which a
judge arrives at a decision must be unbiased, reasonable, and fair. Moreover, the judge is obligated
to explain his or her decision clearly and in a fashion that benefits all participants. Judges must
adhere closely to the criteria associated with the category they are judging. In all competitions, other
than those using World University Debate Championship rules, judges must reach their decisions
independently, without any discussion with other panel judges or the debaters themselves.
         A. A judge must strive to make a fair and unbiased decision. A judge’s decision-making
process is twofold: 1. A judge must evaluate a round based upon the rules specific to that event (see
IDEA Rules for Events). Some events -- particularly speech events -- mandate penalties for certain
rule violations, and these should be taken into account (ballots may include reference lists of these
penalties). 2. A judge must exercise critical judgment in evaluating a round on its own terms. In
making a decision, a judge must endeavor not to privilege his or her own personal tastes or special
knowledge, or his or her impressions of participants from other rounds.
         B. A judge must compose a ballot that justifies his or her decision and offers each participant
clear and constructive criticism. Through the writing of ballots, judges have the opportunity both to
explain the reasoning in their decisions, and to offer informative, thoughtful critiques that provide
students with a foundation for improvement. Consequently, judges must be diligent and thorough in
completing their ballots. It is not enough to merely indicate the "winner." Following a debate, for
example, a judge should elaborate upon what he or she viewed as the central issues, pointing out
how and why the winning case was more persuasive, and identifying the shortcomings of the losing
side. Likewise, in judging a speech event, judges should explain to each participant why they were
ranked as they were, highlighting points of missed emphasis, or ways in which the student failed to
produce an intended effect in a given instance. Judges should attempt to accompany criticism with
positive, constructive feedback – even when writing a losing ballot, and should always avoid
patronizing tones or language. In the end, a judge should appreciate and consider the courage
displayed by all debaters, each of whom must express him or herself in front of an audience while
engaging in complicated and contentious ideas. A judge's ballot is a valuable resource for student
participants, coaches, and entire teams; when students do not know why they have won or lost,
they have little opportunity to learn from the experience, and their faith in the activity suffers. The
insights gleaned from a judge's ballot can thus give participants a chance to address numerous
matters of style and performance (e.g., speaker was inaudible, overly aggressive, or made poor use
of hand gestures) that may need improvement. Ballots should be accessible and clearly written, as
some participants may read them hours or even days after a round has occurred. To this end, judges
should reference specific occurrences in the round to provide substance to the critique. Judges
should ensure that their handwriting is legible, since ballots are often photocopied multiple times,
and may deteriorate. Finally, judges should return ballots to the tab room promptly.
         C. If appropriate to the tournament and event, a judge should offer a verbal critique that
incorporates meaningful criticism. After their decision has been rendered, judges should take the
opportunity to talk with the participants (if the tournament staff has determined that this type of
commentary is permitted at the event). Such discussions can be very helpful to students, insofar as
they allow judges to explain complicated issues at some length. Alternatively, a judge may use this
occasion to deal with certain pressing issues before debaters proceed any further in the tournament.
It is important to note that verbal comments should be used to amplify written ballots – not to
replace them. Indeed, because comments are useful not only to the debaters themselves, but to the
coaches who have prepared the debaters (and who are often not present during rounds), a written
record on the ballot is essential. In all circumstances, judges should determine through the
tournament staff whether the disclosure of decisions is permitted. If this type of critique is not
permitted, judges should merely raise issues in their discussions with participants, without explicitly
stating the outcome of their deliberations. Judges can become inactive but once they are accredited,
they will always be accredited. Judges can become inactive because of inactivity. Inactivity will be
determined based on data entered into Debate Tracker, the IDEA on line database. An accredited
judge can remain active by judging 10 rounds a year.
                 Karl Popper Rules
         Format of a Karl Popper Debate
Speech                                           Speaker[s]    Time
Affirmative Constructive                         A1            6 minutes
First Negative Cross: Examination                N3 and A1     3 minutes
Negative Constructive                            N1            6 minutes
First Affirmative Cross: Examination             A3 and N1     3 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal                       A2            5 minutes
Second Negative Cross: Examination               N1 and A2     3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal                          N2            5 minutes
Second Affirmative Cross: Examination            A1 and N2     3 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal                      A3            5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal                         N3            5 minutes
              Both Sides Have 8 Minutes of Preparation Time.
       While you will, on your ballot, rank the individual speakers, it is important when deciding
which team won the debate to look at the performance of the team as a whole. The Karl Popper
Debate format was intentionally designed to foster a cooperative environment in which students
would need to work together to achieve success.
          When judging a Karl Popper debate, it is worth keeping in mind what a Karl Popper debate is
    First, a Karl Popper Debate ought not to be confused with a trial; a team of Karl Popper Debaters
should not be though of as a team of lawyers. There are three important differences between a trial
and a Karl Popper Debate.
     First, in a trial, one side, usually the side representing the accused is presumed to be right.
          Where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, no such presumption exists in
          Karl Popper Debate. At the start of a Karl Popper Debate, neither side is thought of as having
          right on its side. Instead, both sides are thought of as being under and equal obligation to
          show that theirs is the strongest position.
     Second, in a trial, the attorneys representing each side take an adversarial position towards
          one another and use whatever legal means available to sway the judge or jury. In a Karl
          Popper debate, on the other hand, the debaters are discouraged from viewing themselves as
          engaged in a winner take all struggle like a court proceeding. Though only one side can win a
          debate just as only one side can win in a trial, Karl Popper debaters are discouraged from
          viewing winning and losing in the same way that an attorney might be. Unlike opposing
          attorneys, Karl Popper debaters are encouraged to work cooperatively with their opponents
          to test and challenge each other’s opinions in an open, honest, and friendly manner.
     Finally, the outcome of a trial is meant to resolve or settle a controversy. A Karl Popper
          Debate is meant to do no such thing. As a judge you should not view your vote for one side
          or another as indicating your belief in the truth of that side. As a judge of a Karl Popper
          Debate, you should not confuse the outcome of the debate with the outcome of a trial. A
          judge in a trial attempts to ascertain whether the accused is in fact guilty. The judge of a Karl
          Popper Debate is only asked to decide which team did the better debating in that round.
          Deciding that the affirmative team won a debate round is not the same thing as deciding
          that the resolution being debated is in fact true.
    It is also important not to confuse a Karl Popper Debate with a debate that may take place in a
house of parliament. Just as Karl Popper Debaters should not be mistaken for attorneys, they should
also not be thought of as politicians. To begin with, in a house of parliament the status quo receives
a privileged position in that if a proposal does not win the approval of the majority of the house, the
status quo remains unchanged. It is the job of the side proposing a change to convince the majority
to accept it. In a Karl Popper Debate, the status quo is not privileged in this way. One of the goals of
the Karl Popper Debate program is to raise the level of political discourse in democratic societies.
Ideally, the Karl Popper Debate Program will help train citizens to better participate in democratic
politics by encouraging them to avoid many of the demagogic practices that are often used by
politicians today. Rather than putting either their cause or their own personal interest ahead of all
else, the Karl Popper Debater is encouraged to discuss questions of political consequence with an
open-minded and levelheaded manner.
    All too often politicians today substitute empty rhetoric for substantial discussion of the issues
before them. Karl Popper Debaters are encouraged at all time to offer only the strongest arguments
they can find in support of their position. Further, when a House of parliament votes for or against a
proposal, the members are not limited in making their decision to using those facts and arguments
brought up in the debate before the house. Similarly, depending on your point of view, members of
parliament are sometimes expected to vote with their party and against their better judgment while
at other times they are expected to support whatever position they most believe or to vote their
conscious. As the judge of a Karl Popper Debate, you should always keep in mind that you are only
deciding who did the best debating in the round and should try when making your decision to ignore
whatever particular knowledge you may have of the topic being debated. Further, just as the
debaters are not expected to necessarily believe in the truth of the position they are taking, neither
is the judge. That is, the judge is not asked to decide which way that would vote were their decision
binding on all of society.
     Rather than comparing a Karl Popper Debate to either a trial or a parliamentary proceeding and
Karl Popper Debaters to attorneys, advocates, or politicians, it may be more useful to think of the
debate as an experiment and the debaters as scientists. In many ways, this is very much in keeping
with the ideals of Popper himself. While Popper believed in the existence of objective truth, he was
very wary of anyone who claimed to be in secure possession of it. For Popper, human knowledge
progressed through a series of incremental steps: theories are developed, criticized, and then
improved upon. Theories are improved upon by being exposed to critical discussion. Tracing the
story of critical debate back to Ancient Greece, Popper described the invention of critical argument
as being an important step in the development of mankind:
         "It was a momentous innovation. It meant a break with the dogmatic tradition which
         permits only one school doctrine, and the introduction of a tradition that admits a plurality
         of doctrines which all try to approach the truth by means of critical discussion. It thus leads,
         almost by necessity, to the realization that our attempt to see and find the truth is not final,
         but open to improvement; that our knowledge is conjectural; that it consists of guesses, of
         hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths; and that criticism and critical discussion
         are our only means of getting nearer to the truth."
         It is because Popper’s method was a scientific one that you may find it helpful to consider
the debates you judge as experiments. Karl Popper debaters should be seen as collaboratively
testing their own theories and beliefs. Even when the debaters are arguing against the position they
may, in reality, believe in, they are doing so only to better test and strengthen their beliefs. As
Popper saw it, only be continually testing ones beliefs by continually testing and arguing against
them, could their truth be known. Moreover, while it is possible to argue against oneself and not to
publicly argue against cherished belief, Popper himself emphasized the social aspect of argument:
         "A Robinson Crusoe (marooned in early childhood) might be clever enough to master many
         difficult situations; but he would invent neither language nor the art of argumentation.
         Admittedly, we often argue with ourselves; but we are accustomed to do so only because
         we have learned to argue with others and because we have learned in this way that the
         argument counts..."
         The goal of a Karl Popper debate is to help develop in both those engaged in the debate and
those witnessing it an attitude necessary for life in an open society. This is an attitude Popper
describe as being fundamentally an attitude of admitting that ‘I may be wrong and you may be right,
and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth. It is an attitude that does no lightly give up hope
that by such means as argument and careful observation, people may reach some kind of agreement
on many problems of importance; and that, even where their demands and their interests clash, it is
often possible to argue about the various demands and proposals, and to reach—perhaps by
arbitration—a compromise which, because it its equity, is acceptable to.
                  The Objectivity versus the Subjectivity of Judging
         While we expect judging to be unbiased and objective, it is important to recognize that all
judging experiences have a certain level of bias. After all, the 'tabula rasa' principle works better in
theory than in practice. In judging, one of the best ways to deal with personal bias is to list it in one's
judging philosophy. Thus, if a judge is particularly well-versed in a particular field such as law, it is
important that debaters are aware of that, since arguments pertaining to that particular field are
likely to be examined differently by people who are experts in it. A judge that comes from a
Parliamentary or Lincoln Douglas background might expect the speeches to be more formal, while a
judge from a Policy background might want to hear certain types of arguments addressed by specific
names (topicality, counter plan etc.) Listing your background and expectations as a judge in your
judging philosophy is one way of dealing with bias. Another is maintaining a level of consistency in
terms of what influences your decision: the types of arguments you are more likely to accept or not -
some judges are more likely to consider topicality arguments than others - whether you ever give
low point wins or not, whether you prefer debaters to be more formal or not, whether you put more
emphasis on style than argumentation, etc. The objectivity of judging is most often questioned come
decision time. While we tell judges that in most instances there is no right or wrong decision, it is
important that each judge is able to defend his/her position in light of the rules of the particular
debate format, the tournament and the general set of expectations from debaters. A well justified
decision will, more often than not, be considered to be an objective decision, independent of
whether other judges voted similarly or not. In conclusion, the best way to deal with bias and
maintaining a certain level of objectivity in a round is to be very specific in your judging philosophy
about your experience and expectations as a judge, be consistent in your stand on particular issues
related to debate and be able to justify your decisions properly.
         Speaker Responsibilities: How to Follow and Evaluate Them?
         Designed to promote teamwork, the three-on-three style of the Karl Popper Debate,
encourages debaters to work together both before and during their debates. While individual
excellence is not to be discouraged, success in debate should be measured based on how well a
team works together. In making your decision, you should consider the quality of the team as a
whole. At the same time, each member of the team does have certain unique responsibilities.
                 Making a Decision
         Take a few minutes to reach your decision, without discussing it with others. You are to
judge by the content of the debate and by how each of the teams did their job. Each team must win
the arguments that support their side of the resolution. There will be times when one team will be
better organized, better speakers, etc., while the other side may present the more decisive
arguments. Vote for the team that had the best arguments, unless their lack of presentation skills
prevented you from understanding their arguments, eg. That they were disorganized, or spoke too
quickly, or didn’t follow through on good arguments. There is no list, no set of stock issues. There is
no one correct way to reach a decision. The flow sheet is a crucial tool for recording and keeping
track of the arguments in the debate.
         Write down your initial impression, which team you felt won the debate. Then, identify the
major points of ‘clash’ in the debate, which arguments were most significant or most contested in
the debate. Determine the winner for each of these arguments, which team was most persuasive on
each of these issues, based on the evidence and reasoning presented and the responses to these
arguments. Look for important arguments that were ‘dropped’ by either side, or how they may
affect other arguments. Determine if each team met their burdens, presenting independent
arguments in support of or against the resolution, and offering refutation of the opponents’
          Evaluate the quality of the arguments won by each team, weighing whether they have met
their burdens. Taking everything into account, who won the debate? This should correspond to your
initial impression; if not, you should follow your second impression. Usually this will correspond to
your initial impression. If not, you need to make a difficult choice. Has your reconstruction of
arguments required too much ‘intervention’? Have you done the debating for the debaters? In
writing down the initial impression, the judge can identify the most persuasive team, in terms of
clarity of argument and speaking style. In analyzing each argument more carefully, the judge can
combine considerations of content and persuasive style.
          Considering key questions, or ‘stock issues.’ Has the affirmative presented a prima facie (at
first sight, before close inspection) case, and met their burden? Has the affirmative provided a
topical case, providing clear and fair definitions for the terms of the resolution? Has the affirmative
justified and met their criterion where necessary? Has the negative presented their position clearly,
meeting their burden of refutation? Did both teams provide adequate evidence to support their
claims? Which team was more persuasive? In the clarity and manner of their presentation? In the
effective use of argument and reasoning? Remember that the judge’s decision must be based on
content, not speaking style, preference or personal opinion.
                  Following an Argument throughout the Debate
          The best way to follow an argument throughout a debate is to take detailed notes and keep
them organized. The very best judges often keep impeccable flow sheets with arguments clearly
labeled and arrows helping to guide them from argument to answer. In a messy debate, it is a real
skill to be able to label arguments correctly and tag them with the appropriate answers. While
keeping an organized flow sheet is key to identifying key arguments and following them throughout
the round, evaluating those arguments in relation to the topic and other key arguments in the round
requires a separate set of skills. While the last two speakers in a debate are expected to walk you
through the debate and identify, connect and weight the key issues that is not always the case. It is
in these instances of messy debates that bias is most often introduced, with the judge often left to
connect and weight the arguments himself/herself based on criteria that is not always evident and
sometimes randomly chosen, is neither team sets up clear standards against which their arguments
should be judged.
                  Dealing with Evidence
          Judges from different backgrounds tend to deal with evidence presented in a round very
differently. While judges from a Policy debate background generally expect most arguments to be
supported by evidence and the round to hinge upon the type of evidence that is being presented,
others are more likely to treat evidence as a less essential part of argumentation, with logic taking
precedence over particular pieces of evidence. Assessing evidence in a round can prove to be
particularly difficult when debaters do not know how to present it and use it properly. One of the
most common problems in a debate is that citations are not properly introduced, thus making it
difficult to assess the source of the evidence and the time at which it was produced. Another
problem is failing to connect a particular piece of evidence with a larger argument in the round or
properly examine its implications for the case, refutation or rebuttal. In cases like this, judges are
often left to decide for themselves what role that particular piece of evidence plays and how it
should be assessed in the round. Some judges are perfectly comfortable with this, often asking the
debaters to present their evidence at the end of the round for a closer assessment (we do not
encourage this) while others simply dismiss it if neither team tells them what to do with it in the
round. Most judges will choose the middle ground. While there are few specific rules when it comes
to dealing with evidence as a judge, here are a number of thumb rules:
         1. New evidence will not be considered in the last two speeches of the round. The 2 Aff. and
2 Neg. are the last speakers to introduce new evidence in a round.
         2. When presented, each piece of evidence should start with a proper citation: author, date,
and source. Remind debaters before the round that this is important. When no proper citation is
presented at any point during the round, it is at the discretion of the judge whether he/she will
consider this particular piece of evidence.
         3. When dealing with two contradictory pieces of evidence on the same point, it is the job of
the debaters to convince you that one piece of evidence is better than another. If they fail to do so,
you may disregard those particular pieces of evidence.
         4. If you think that a particular piece of evidence is false and neither team points it out
during the round, you may choose whether to consider it or not, but should double check at the end
of the round. If it turns out that the piece of evidence has been fabricated - willfully changed, the
issue should be raised with the tournament director.
         5. If one of the teams questions a particular piece of evidence and it becomes an essential
issue in the round, the judge can request the see the evidence at the end of the round and evaluate
it for himself/herself. This however should be an exceptional circumstance as opposed to a common
                  Deciding on and Weighing Important Arguments
         Generally speaking, the main arguments in the round are the ones that both teams spent
most of their time presenting, responding to and weighing at the end of the round. Dropped
arguments that neither team picks up throughout the debate, are generally considered to be
marginal arguments and should not weigh heavily in the final decision. Once major arguments and
areas of clash are identified, judges should go back to their flow sheet and follow them through from
the first to the last speeches, assessing the strength of each argument in light of refutations,
rebuttals and pieces of evidence presented. Arguments should always be assessed against the
criteria presented by each team as well as against the topic at hand. Votes should go to the most
convincing arguments that clearly support that particular position under the resolution. In instances
when debaters spend too much time on an argument that the judge considers to be largely
irrelevant for the topic or their particular interpretation, a note should be made on the ballot as to
why the judge did not consider this as a major argument in the round and did not weigh it as such.
The weighing process generally involves a close assessment of the logic, explanation and evidence
that accompanies each major argument (and responses to those arguments) followed by an
assessment process of the specific role that the argument plays in the round. While the weighing
should ideally be done for you by the third speakers in each round, oftentimes, this does not
happen, and judges are left to do the weighing for them. In these instances, judges should pay
particular attention to weighing only arguments that were actually presented in the round as
opposed to introducing their own opinions, personal knowledge and bias.

                Grounds for Disqualifying a Team
         While the decision of whether a team should be disqualified or not lies with the Tournament
Director, here are some grounds on which such a decision could be based. It is the job of the judges
to bring some of these issues to the attention of the Tournament Director.
1. Intellectual dishonesty
2. Fabricated evidence
3. Discriminatory comments during the round
4. Physical or psychological harassment
5. Mean and inappropriate behavior towards members of your own team or the opposite team
                  Split Decisions
         In panel judging, split decisions are very common. In particularly close rounds, judges can
generally justify a vote for either team. A 3-4 or a 4-5 decision is less likely to be questioned than a 4-
1 or 6-1 decision, where the minority judge often feels pressured to present a very good justification
for his/her decision. New judges are more at threat of being intimidated when in a minority position,
questioning their decisions and risking loosing their confidence. It is important that other judges on
the panel do not corner the minority judge and refrain from any gestures that show a clear
disagreement with the decision. Debaters are free to question decisions after the oral comments
have been presented and the round officially declared closed, and judges should be available to
answer their questions, as long as time allows it. If debaters are too aggressive in their questioning,
judges should feel free to end the conversation. Once made, decisions cannot be changed under any
circumstances, even in the unlikely case that a judge changes his/her mind after the round.
                  Giving a Low Point Win [LPW]
         Low point wins should be the exception rather than the rule. IDEA tournaments accept low-
point wins, yet the reason for such a decision should be clearly justified in the individual comments
as well as the main points of clash. A low point win is generally awarded in instances when a
particularly weak speaker brings down the overall points of the team, yet the rest of the team is able
to come back and win the round. This is more likely to happen during a mixed team tournament,
where speakers are at very different levels of experience, and stronger speakers may be able to
compensate for weaker speakers. An unexpected failing of an otherwise really good second speaker
to address a particularly important argument, could also result in a low point win. It is important that
judges clearly check the low point win check box on the ballot when awarding one.
                  Oral Critiques
         Carefully compose the reasons for your decision on the ballot. Written comments will be
useful for the students and for their coach, who may not have had an opportunity to see the debate
first hand. Someone reading your notes should be able to figure out what happened during the
debate, what were the important arguments and how well they were argued? Usually, a ballot form
will have two columns, as if on either side of an up-turned T, one for comments for the Affirmative
team, one for comments for the Negative team, and a space below, for your reasons for the
decision. If the columns are for addressing comments to each team specifically, the space below is
for an explicit contrast of the two teams on a set of the important issues in the debate.
         Example: "Aff wins the ... argument, because they convinced me that..., while Neg wins the
         ... argument...".
         The ballot should be read by students and coaches. It should communicate criticisms,
tempering criticisms with positive encouragement. This is especially important for less experienced
students. Points and ranks are not objective. The judge’s ballot is an instructional tool for the
debaters to improve their performance; write a thorough critique of the debate, outlining the main
contested arguments; offering overall comments on the team and for the speakers is also important.
         Be detailed, avoid vague. Detail is very important, especially for coaches; describe
contradictions as precisely as possible. Focus on the arguments, not the debaters; dampen critical
comments, a mild rebuke will be misinterpreted as a significant censure; often soften your critical
statements. Instead of writing "this argument makes no sense", write, "It’s difficult for me to accept
the reasoning behind this argument"; and be as specific as possible, outlining the weaknesses, etc.
Indirection or dilution of comments often prevents students from misperceiving criticisms.
         Conclude with positive feedback. Include as much positive feedback and comments about
performance as possible. Your comments should be encouraging for future performance.
                  Giving a Constructive Critique
         Once your ballot is completed and your decision made, you may call in the debaters to
review the debate with them; give constructive comments, without disclosing decision. Often there
is a period of oral criticism that follows the debate. This is a formal opportunity for you to
communicate your comments to the students directly. An oral critique is meant to supplement, but
does not substitute for, written comments on the ballot.
         This is an opportunity to talk with students directly, offering suggestions for future debates.
Also, it is sometimes helpful for others, including other judges, to hear how you reached your
Oral criticisms should be optional, and you should not feel obligated to offer one; many judges feel
uncomfortable articulating why they voted the way they did, immediately after a debate, in a
crowded room, in a language they may be uncomfortable speaking; you may simply want time to
compose your thoughts more carefully on the ballot, and talk to teams afterward.
         Criticism presented in an informal discussion with students and coaches may be more
relaxed after the debate. Often students are more receptive to comments when they have some
distance from the debate.
                  Overall Comments vs. Individual Comments
         We generally recommend that judges should not spend more than 5 minutes each on their
oral comments. Given this time constraint, judges should focus on the one hand on clearly justifying
the reason for their decision and on the other hand on giving the team and each of the speakers
constructive criticism that they will be able to apply in future rounds. We recommend that judges
start with the justification for their decision (overall comments) and only afterwards, if time allows
it, focus on individual comments. Individual comments generally focus on both style/delivery as well
as the handling of arguments. Thus, individual comments may recommend that a debater speak
louder or softer, face the judges, make eye contact with the opposite team, read less, ask more
focused questions, or acknowledge arguments dropped by the other team, organize a speech better,
or handle a specific argument differently.
                  Frequently Asked Questions
Can the judge ask to see a piece of evidence of the case from either team?
         Yes, in some cases, but only after the debate. The judge may ask for the material, but rarely
         is this necessary; only if it is an essential issue in the debate.
Can the judge ask a member of the audience to leave the room?
         Yes. If a member of the audience disrupts the debate, even after several requests by the
         judge, the judge has the responsibility to ask the person to leave the room. Audience
         members should be prepared to stay for the duration of the debate.
Can the judge interrupt the debate to ask a question or request clarification?
         No. The judge should not interrupt the flow of the debate. If an argument is unclear to the
         judge, it is the responsibility of the debater to clarify; the judge may indicate confusion by
         offering a quizzical look. But the judge should not interrupt during prep-time, constructive or
         rebuttal speeches, or during cross-examination. If the point is not clarified, the judge must
         make the decision based on the available information. However, if the judge cannot
         understand the speaker because he or she is speaking too quickly or too softly, they may
         politely request that they alter their style. Be careful, though, to weigh this against making
         students uncomfortable.
Can I stop the debate to correct a mistake?
         Stopping students in the middle of a debate to correct them would seem almost always
         inappropriate. Naturally, there might be exceptions. But make a comment on the ballot
         rather than interrupt a debate. Some countries have rules that allow a judge to stop a
         debate if something is not being done correctly. This may only apply to questions of format,
         i.e. if the wrong person stands up for cross-examination. But not if there is a new argument,
         etc. The decision to stop a debate in the middle of an already stressful activity must be
         weighed against the trauma to the student and the educational benefits of stopping.
Is it appropriate for the judge to translate a word if the students do not understand it?
         Sometimes. The judge may translate a word from a foreign to a native language if one of the
         debaters does not understand. However, the judge may not define the word, explaining
         what it means. The focus should be on arguments, not language.
Is it appropriate for the judge to explain an argument to a competitor during a debate?
         No. A judge should not assist the competitors in their understanding of arguments during a
         debate. The judge should not offer assistance that would unfairly benefit one team.
Why are judges’ evaluations so different?
         In an ideal world, this wouldn’t happen. Intelligent judges applying the same standards
         would arrive at the same decision. Sometimes judges look for different things based on
         different backgrounds or their conception of the resolution (the motion). Some are
         persuaded by smooth delivery others by the simple quality of the arguments. Despite our
         best attempts to be "objective", it’s hard to keep our personal preferences from influencing
         our decisions. I think it’s important for judges to discipline themselves to be fair to both
         debaters – to really listen to what they are saying and not to prejudge their arguments, and
         to be clear about the standards agreed upon to judge the round. This last part is particularly
         important at the early stages of a debate program. Judges need to talk about how they
         decide rounds.
How important is cross-examination? How do judges evaluate it?
         Cross-examination is very important. Some debaters tend to minimize it because they are
         not very good at it. The best debaters are excellent cross-examiners. They will skillfully
         expose the weaknesses of their opponent’s case – either in logical or evidentiary terms. They
         will also ask questions which set up their own case. Cross-examination allows the judge to
         evaluate a debater’s understanding of the key issues of the round. Good judges listen to
         constructive and form questions in their own mind, hoping that the cross-examiner will ask
         the same questions. A judge will also evaluate how successfully a debater uses what they’ve
         elicited in cross-examination in their rebuttals. It’s amazing how many debaters will get a
         damaging admission in cross-examination only to fail to follow-up on it in rebuttal.
Is it allowed to have so many arguments that the opposing team cannot manage to refute all of
them during the limited time?
          It’s allowed, but unwise. Some debaters think it is a good strategy to bombard the other side
          with arguments, so as to overwhelm them. But they also risk overwhelming the judge.
          Furthermore, it also raises serious questions about the quality of these arguments. How
          persuasive are arguments that are merely asserted or poorly substantiated? How difficult is
          it for your opponents to refute them? One is better off developing strong arguments with
          ample evidence.
Should judges always analyze the debate?
          Yes, of course, that's their job. They're supposed to analyze the arguments of both debaters,
          not only as they are presented in their opening speeches but as they are developed in the
          round. They are also supposed to evaluate how effectively a debater "clashes" with his or
          her opponent's case, being especially attentive to how well arguments are recast in light of
          new challenges, including new evidence.
          But I also think your question is hinting at something else - should the judges do the
          debating for the debater - what we call "intervention?" The answer is no. As a educator, a
          judge should always comment on the merits of the cases before him or her, even if they go
          uncontested. Just because the other debater missed the weaknesses, doesn't mean they
          didn't exist. However, in deciding who should win the round, a judge should only rely on
          what's actually transpired in the round, not on what he or she would've have done. I don't
          know how many times I've written a ballot that "this doesn't make sense" or "that's
          incomplete" or "why didn't you pursue this line of reasoning?" only to have to decide for
          that debater because his or her opponent failed to identify these weaknesses or had too
          many of his own. Deciding a round is always a relative judgment - someone has to win.
          On the other hand in a really good round, it's unfortunate that someone has to lose.
          But there can be no 'ties'.

Shared By: