Acknowledgements

This guide draws from the training materials

Judge
developed by the CAP of previous WSDCs
(especially Vietnam 2023 and Serbia 2024),
building on their accumulated work.

Briefing We would highly recommend all judges to also

consult:
1. Official Kenya WSDC 2026 CAP - YouTube
2. WSDC Handbook 2025 - Public Viewing - Google Docs
New Nations 2026
New Nations 2026 CAP
 Overview
Topics We’ll Be Covering

1 Model Judge New Judge

2 Judging Criteria WSDC Rules

3 Judging Process Some things are comp specific

4 Scoring and Feedback WSDC Rules

 The
Model
Judge
 The Model Judge
The Model Judge is…

● Hypothetical ‘ordinary intelligent voter’ (‘average reasonable person’) Possessing general knowledge: Take on the
role of an average, intelligent listener and is aware of current affairs and basic facts without letting specialist knowledge
interfere with the debate.
● Impartial: Doesn’t judge teams they have a personal bond with (nation of affiliation, teams they have coached, etc.).
● Unbiased: Has no prior idea who is going to win the debate. They set aside their personal opinion about the motion or
specific arguments. They don’t expect teams to argue their preferred arguments or discount arguments they don’t like.
They judge the debate that happened before them.
● Open-minded and concerned to decide how to vote – they are thus willing to be convinced by the debaters who
provide the most compelling case for or against a certain policy.
● Observant and diligent: Listens carefully to what debaters say and doesn’t construct ideas that haven’t been explained
well. They look for substantiation and evidence equally from both teams. They track arguments, responses, and POIs –
and are able to fairly and accurately summarize the debate (not necessarily to the debaters, even just to themselves)
before evaluating it.
● Expert on the rules: Knows WSDC debating rules well and understands the words in the motion and the roles of
teams/speakers.
● Accountable & Constructive: Can justify their decision based on a sound understanding of issues in the debate and the
criteria for judging & gives debaters constructive and concrete feedback after the result of the debate is announced.
 The Model Judge
The Model Judge should NOT…

Use extremely specific knowledge on a certain topic. A Assess the content in the debate based on the arguments a team
judge should never say: could have made. A judge should never say:
“The proposition claimed that 1 million electric cars were “I penalized you because you didn’t bring an argument about the
produced in the UK last year, and it wasn’t attacked by the economy, even though I think that is really relevant in the debate.” →
adjudicators can not penalize teams for not bringing certain
opposition, but since this is my field of expertise I know that the
arguments. They can, however, give this as explicit feedback for
correct number is 39000 which is why the argument falls.” → teams to improve. Not as a legitimization of the call for the given
adjudicators judge the debate as it happened. debate.

Assess the content based on refutation the judge is Fill in the gaps in analysis or rebuttal that a team has themselves
able to think of against an argument. A judge should You tried to explain why this policy harms minorities, and even though
you didn’t give the right reasons, I do agree with you that it’s an
never say: important argument because of reason X, Y and Z. This is why I
You explained your arguments about violence well, but I awarded you on content. → Judges only take into account what has
thought of other ways to rebut it which is why I penalized been said, not what could have been said in the debate. They can only
you on content. → Only take into account what has been give such advice during feedback for improvement purposes, if teams
said, not what could have been said in the debate. want to know how to make their argument(s) stronger, not as a
justification of awarding marks.
 The Model Judge
The Model Judge SHOULD…

● Be courteous and respectful to the teams and coaches

● Do not allow coaches or audience members to make signs or signals to debaters

beyond time signals, and maintains decorum

● Makes themselves available for feedback

○ The schedule will generally allow for team and individual feedback at the end of
each round. Unless emergencies occur, judges should provide feedback.

● Pay attention in rounds:

○ Not checking their phones
○ Taking good notes
(WSDC)
Judging
Criteria
 Judging Criteria

Content (40%) Style (40%) Strategy (20%)

● Deals with WHAT is being ● Style deals with HOW the content is
presented.
● Deals with WHY content is said.
presented. ● Style does NOT include Accents. A
● It’s the sum of choices that a team
● Evaluates the quality of speaker’s accent (foreign-ness or familiarity makes in order to win a debate.
of an accent, or perceived harshness or ● It includes interpretation and
content. pleasantness of an accent) should never be relevance of the motion, time
● Covers arguments, consideration when scoring for style.
allocation, structuring of the
● Style is NOT about immutable characteristics
rebuttal, content of POIs of an individual’s voice - perceived to be a speech (prioritization), consistency
and responses to POIs. harsh vocal tone or pitch. between arguments and
● Style also does not include the format
● Even if material is not speakers choose to organise and deliver
speeches, dealing with POIs in
explicitly flagged as their speech (palm cards, sheets of paper, your speech.
rebuttal, it may be etc.) ● Strategy points are awarded when
● Style includes body language and hand a speaker identifies and addresses
responsive to the other gestures (if applicable), pace of speech,
the right issues in the debate,
volume and tonal variations, choice of
side’s material. vocabulary (too technical or too lay? Emotive even if they don’t analyse these
● If an argument or rebuttal or dry?), eye contact maintained, or fixated issues very well.
is weak / poorly on notes? (if applicable), variation of pace,
volume, and so on.
● Good strategy can be independent
developed, it is generally a ● Bad style typically hinders the intelligibility of good content, and is intrinsically
content weakness. or persuasiveness of the argumentation tied to good engagement.
offered, and could include mumbling,
shouting too loudly, or speaking too quickly
to be understood.
 How does the tripartite marking
scheme work?
Deciding the win

Speeches are marked holistically, with a consideration of

these three categories. Debaters should use these three
categories to consider how their speech could be
improved in future debates.

Judges should determine which team did the best to

persuade them, by reasoned argument, within the
constraints set by the rules of Debating, The judges do so
as the ordinary intelligent voter, and their assessments
are always holistic and comparative

In the next three slides, we will provide three examples of

how the three categories work together.
 Examples
Overall: Likely average to slightly above Overall: Below average to average Overall: Above average to Very above
average average

A speaker identifies the correct issues, A speaker provides average The First Proposition speech was able to
but is not able to prove why their team responses to the material from the correctly identify the debate winning
other side, and engages in very issues in the debate, and devotes their
wins the issues due to their rebuttals entire speech to providing analytically
being mostly strawman attacks. limited weighing up of claims from rigorous substantiation in support of the
However, they provide emotive both sides in the debate. However, motion, including dealing with Opposition
characterisation that makes the issues their speech flowed effortlessly, arguments preemptively. While doing so,
seem more important to the average showing variation in tone and pace, to they used body movement and hand
gestures effectively, and was able to use
reasonable person. highlight certain arguments. emotive rhetoric as a means of rhetorically
weighing the importance of their material.
● Upward pressure on Strategy – ● Downward pressure on
good issue identification Strategy – limited weighing ● Upward pressure on Strategy –
Correct issue identification and
● Downward pressure on Content ● Neutral pressure on Content – Preemptive Engagement
– poor analysis average responses ● Upward pressure on Content –
● Upward pressure on Style – ● Upward pressure on Style – Analytically rigorous substantiation
emotive characterisation that Variation in tone and pace ● Upward pressure on Style –
Emotive rhetoric for rhetorically
adds to the persuasiveness of a highlighted the need to weighing importance of claims.
given material. consider certain arguments.
Judging: Points of Information
To be considered in substantive speeches

● POIs are allowed between the 1st and last minute of the speech. This means that speakers on the other side
may choose to offer a POI at any time during that time so long as they do not badger the speaker holding the
floor. The CAP highly discourages speakers from declaring that they will only take a POI at a specific point
in the speech before starting their speeches (e.g. “I will only take a POI at 6 minutes and 50 seconds”).
● As a matter of etiquette, speakers should stand up when offering POIs. POIs should not be offered sitting
down, unless the speaker is physically unable to stand up, e.g. because of a lower body injury.
● Unlike in online debating, there are no “preferences for how POIs are given”. POIs should be announced
verbally with either “point”, “point of information”, “on that point” or other words that do not announce the
point before it is delivered (e.g. “on the point of freedom”, “on the model”, etc).
● As a rule, speakers offering POIs must complete their POIs within 15 seconds. If a speaker takes longer
than 15 seconds to do so, the chair-adjudicator or the speaker holding the floor has the discretion to ask the
speaker to sit down.
● We would like to remind speakers to not heckle or barrack speakers when offering POIs, e.g. having
another speaker standing up immediately after a POI was rejected. As a guide, POIs should be spaced out,
with at least a 15-30 seconds gap between the offering of each POI.
 Evaluating Analysis
Deciding the win

What is good analysis? Arguments

Merely stating a consequence v. explaining why it is a
● Rigorous Logic: Links made, conclusion cleanly derived from consequence and its impact
assumptions Quality of analysis (missing logical links)
● Goes beyond assertions: not just claiming outcomes such as harms and
benefits without analysis to back up why that outcome is likely.
Relevance: Decided on by the teams, and what they make relevant to
Rebuttal
●
the debate
● Relative Importance: Why is this argument important in the world/in the Misrepresenting and then attacking v. attacking the actual
debate? argument
● Tracking Evolution: Responding to responses, adding new Stating an argument is false v. using logical steps to
illustrations/language
disprove it
How should knowledge of good analysis affect judge behavior?

● A good judge never takes what teams say they have proven at face
Examples
value; always check if they actually did so! Labels can be misleading Quality of examples (broadly applicable or cherry-picked?
● Saying why something is important is not the same as proving that it generalised or personal anecdotes?)
happens. Stating overly specific, irrelevant examples v. explaining
relevant persuasive examples
 Second speaker clarification:
Extension v. New Substantive
Comparing the historic norm to the new trend

● Traditionally, the norm was for Second Speakers to have 1-2 new, unique, independent, and explicit argument(s).
● More recently, there is trend at WSDC that sees Second Speakers not having 1-2 new, unique, independent, and explicit
argument(s). Instead, Second Speakers engage in extensive weighing, framing, rebuttal action, and advanced stakeholder
analysis.
● CAP Clarification: No approach, in itself, is better than the other.
● However, teams may consider the following strategic contexts:
○ E.g. if the speech adds a new argument without addressing the most important rebuttals from the other side, it may
be new, but it would not be strategic.
○ E.g. if the speech adds new layers of analysis to an already-proven argument that is not contested, it may be new, but
it would not be strategic.
○ E.g. if the speech adds no new arguments, but engages in the important issues in the debate, it may not be new, but it
would be strategic.
○ E.g. if it is necessary to pivot after the first response from the opposing side, it might be strategic to add entirely new,
unique, independent, and explicit argument(s)
● If the decision is made to forward a new argument, that argument should be given enough time to be properly and fully
analysed.
● CAP Position: Second Speakers should introduce new material (e.g. new examples, advanced stakeholder analysis,
additional logical links, more impacts, more/new weighing or framing, etc.), even if it is not a new argument. The Second
Speaker Speech should not be a mere repetition of the First Speaker.
 Third speaker clarification
The role of the Third Speaker is to respond to the other team’s case.

New material 1 Late material 2 Evolution 3

Brought up in prep, not E.g. if Prop 1 brings up a piece of substantive Brought up in 1st, extended in
analysis, but it is only engaged with in Opp 3,
discussed in 1st/2nd, not flagged who defeats the material. While this is not 2nd to respond to other side,
as an argument in 1st, brought new, the engagement is late since there were extended in 3rd to respond to
at least two prior speeches that could have
up for first time in 3rd. responded.
other side.

1. The Third Speeches from either team may provide an entirely new, unique, independent, and explicit argument, if and only if
it was flagged in the First Proposition/Opposition speech.
○ However, it is not strategic to leave the strongest material to the Third Speaker as it shows poor prioritisation.
2. Late material could be marked in the following ways:
○ If successful in responding, upwards pressure on content
○ However, poor prioritisation across the team, means downward pressure on strategy.
3. Evolution of material refers to the progressive development of a piece of material down the bench.
○ E.g. P1 makes argument X, P2 extends from argument X to respond to Opp’s argument Y, P3 builds on P2’s discussion
of X and extends it with even-if analysis.
○ Distinct from late material as the material has been consistently engaged with throughout the debate.
 Examples of evolution
Responding can come in a variety of forms, such as:

● Direct rebuttal to an argument that the other team has made, which means providing a critique of
the logic in the argument or providing new explanations for why the conclusion reached in the
other side’s argument is wrong
● Weighing of arguments by providing analysis of the relative importance of arguments or impacts
● Indirect comments or analysis about an existing clash point: providing new conclusions or
impacts which can be weighed against the conclusions reached by the other team
● New contextual or characterisation analysis which broaden the understanding of conclusions
reached by either team
● New examples which provide deeper understanding of the arguments being made or existing
rebuttal
So long as the idea being developed can be clearly traced to a development in the debate (e.g. picking
up on an earlier response, deepening a given substantive, following on from what First/Second speakers
are doing, similar analytical direction of existing material), it is not considered as new material.
 Third speaker clarification
Critical response in O3

● What happens if a critical portion of the

Opposition rebuttal to Proposition’s case is
delivered by the Third Speaker, without any
engagement from the First and Second
Speaker? Can the Opposition still win?
○ Theoretically possible IF responses are
thorough.
○ However, this is arguably bad strategy given that
Proposition (a) had ample opportunity to build
their case, and (b) has very little opportunity to
respond.
○ Moreover, given that Opposition only has 1
speech, it is unlikely that Third Opposition would
have the time to be thorough.
 Reply speaker clarification
New matter in reply

● The Reply Speech is a biased summary of the debate from the

team’s viewpoint, including a response to the other side’s
case.
● Good reply speeches do not just report on the debate that
happened, but contribute to the team’s overall strategy and
approach in the debate, in order to shape how the debate has
evolved and panned out
● A reply speaker may respond to an existing argument by
raising a new example that illustrates that argument but may
not otherwise introduce a new argument.

NO NEW MATERIAL IN THE DEBATE

● New weighing, new framing, new contextual observations,

new examples are permitted. HOWEVER they have to be
clearly derivative, and, even then, if late, could be considered
as poor strategy.
 Identifying issues
You must identify issues that were discussed in the debate in order to judge in a systematic manner

● What are the main issues in a debate?

○ The clashes/issues most discussed?
○ You have to identify the issues that are more crucial to winning the debate than others
● How do you identify main issues in a debate?
○ Debaters do it for you
■ Example - THW ban smoking: Is it a legitimate choice to smoke?
● Does banning smoking reduce harms on smokers and their families?
○ With no clash – you track and evaluate arguments and engagement
○ It is important to identify and issues as they emerged in the debate, do NOT enter the
debate and decide what issues should have emerged
● How do I, as a judge, do that?
○ What does the motion require teams to prove?
○ What were/became the most important issues raised in the debate
○ Who won those issues effectively through arguments and evidence provided
 Weighing issues
This helps decide which issue is most crucial for a team to win in order to win the debate

● How to rank issues?

○ What did teams explicitly agree on as important?
○ If that’s not clear, then what did teams implicitly agree on as important?
○ If that’s also not clear, then the reasons given by teams on why a particular issue matters
more than other issues (weighing).
○ If there is no explicit weighing, ONLY then enter the debate to decide the ranking of issues
(not as your personal self but as the average reasonable person we described earlier).
Examples of Weighing: Size of group impacted/Extent of impact
● Finally, evaluate who won the issues, and subsequently, the debate.
● Compare the contribution of the two teams on a given issue (arguments + rebuttal)
● Decide which team ultimately won the particular issue – was there important material that stood at
the end that was unresponded to by the other side? Did the existing responses adequately take
down the core of a point a team made?
● The weigh up is NOT numerical ie prop won 3 arguments opp won 2 so prop wins. NO, the
relevance and importance of the arguments matter - what was a more crucial issue for a team to
win on?
 Tracking debates
What should you record?

Speaker Name &

● Name and speaker position of the speaker Position
POIs
● Arguments provided by the team
● POIs (who gave, how many, content, CONTENT OF SPEECH

Comments and Thoughts on

response)
● Comments on the analyses provided
● Comments on the speech overall

Content
● Tentative score, including POI Adjustments.

* The image adjacent is merely an example and

not a prescription of how one should track the
debate.
Comments on Speech Score
 WSDC
Judging
Process
 Conferral Judging
The entire process (in the room) should not take longer than 25 minutes

Led by Chair or
panelist from Only by Chair After the
majority with or panelist round - all
Done by Done as a Done by
support from from majority judges should
yourself panel yourself
panel be available

Engage in Oral Oral Deliver team &

Arrive at preliminary Fill ballots
conferral; Make Adjudication Adjudication individual
verdicts independently
final decision preparation delivery feedback

2 minutes 10 minutes 2 minutes 1 minute 10 minutes

As needed

In the room - 25 minutes Post round

 Conferral Judging
The entire process (in the room) should not take longer than 25 minutes

1 Judge room 3 Judge Room

You will submit your Each judge submits

ballot as normal an independent
ballot
Should be (more)
straightforward Simulates what
happens at WSDC!
1. Arriving at a preliminary verdict
Determine who won the key issues and the quality of the debate

● Track the debate closely through good notes and identify issues as they emerge in the debate.
○ Issues are often questions that help you decide whether a particular motion should pass.
○ Teams will often outline issues themselves as the debate progresses.
○ Example – THW ban alcohol:
■ Is it a legitimate choice to drink alcohol?
■ Does banning alcohol reduce harms on drinkers and their families?
● Evaluate who won the issues you have identified.
○ Compare contributions of the two teams on a given issue (arguments + rebuttal) and check how they interact with each other;
○ Decide which team ultimately won the particular issue – was there important material that stood at the end that was ‘unresponded to by
the other side? Did the existing responses adequately take down the core of a point a team made?
● Decide the importance of each of the issues to the debate.
○ In many debates, it is possible that one team has clearly resolved all the issues in a way that is favourable to their side. However, in
some debates that are particularly close, different teams may have won different issues.
○ Use metrics that Teams often provide in the debate to decide which issues are relatively more important than others. In the absence of
this, use implicit metrics, e.g.: time spent, extent of strength of the argumentation in each issue, intuitive metrics that an average
intelligent voter would use, etc.
● Determine a winner.
○ The team that wins a majority of the important issues in the round wins the debate. Winners aren’t chosen by the aggregate of individual
speaker scores, but rather by the issues they won. Scores then reflect the quality of the debate and speakers.
2. Confer with the panel and decide
Determine who won the key issues and the quality of the debate

● Use the opportunity to clarify any questions you may have about the debate
○ Clarifications around the WSDC rules:
■ Point X was made for the first time by the third speaker. Are we allowed to credit it?
■ Can Team Opposition raise a definition challenge in their second speech?
○ Clarifications about more subjective elements of the debate round:
■ Questions attempting to ascertain or clarify ‘what happened’. These may attempt to double check tracking, confirm that a judge
understood a point correctly, etc. - “Proposition set up 3 levers to the principle - A, B, and C. Is that correct?”
■ Questions attempting to ascertain ‘how to evaluate’. In particularly close debates, these may attempt to understand how to
compare contributions, or weigh up engagement. “Third Opposition has responded in X manner - how can we evaluate if
Proposition has built implicit defences in their case to deal with this?”
● Participate in identifying and tracking issues as a panel
○ Chairs will facilitate the discussion to arrive at the crucial issues within the round and an understanding of the quality and closeness of
the round through questions like: “I thought there were X important questions/issues in the round. Does anyone have additions to
these?” “How close was this round? Did you think it was average, above average, or below average overall?”
○ Wings will contribute to the discussion by articulating how their view of a clash each, This may differ based on whether a split exists or
not. Where a split exists, the judge splitting will briefly go through their perspective across clashes
● Reevaluate your decision based on the new information and perspective you receive
○ Take into account the discussion, recheck your notes, and make your final decision. Inform the Chair judge in the room of this decision.
 3. Fill in ballot independently
Reflect your decision with the appropriate scores

● Scores and categories (Content, Style, Strategy) become most relevant at this point:
○ Content, Style and Strategy are the criteria used to review the performance of each team and assess scores to each speaker. Rather than rigidly
seeing them as discrete elements, these are three mutually reinforcing areas that help a judge score a particular speaker within a debate
● The speaker scores are a mathematical expression of your decision and your view of the debate/speaker quality and not the other way around
○ Because speaker scores are a mathematical expression of your decision, they have to reflect your win loss decision - low point wins are not allowed,
where one team scores higher than another, but loses the issues in the debate
○ If you write down your speakers’ scores and when calculating the totals they indicate that team A won but you honestly think team B should win
because they were overall more convincing and did a better job, then you should review the scores you’ve awarded as your decision and the final
scores should not contradict themselves.
○ At the same time, since the scores are also an expression of your perspective on quality, you can award the highest speaker score to someone on
the losing team to reflect the quality of their speech should it stand out

● The theoretical full range is 0-100 for a constructive speech and 0-50 for a Reply, but this is restricted by rules to 60-80 (30-40 for replies), and speakers
realistically score between 64-76 (and 32-38 in replies)
○ Style: 40% (40 points) → Limited to 24 – 32 pts; Content: 40% (40 points) → Limited to 24 – 32 pts; Strategy: 20% (20 points) → Limited to 12 – 16 pts.
Marks for reply speeches are halved.
○ Points of Information – a modifier of up to +/- 2. This is done to account for instances where the POIs offered by the speaker are significantly different
in quality to the speech given This cannot push the Total Score outside the 60-80 points range
○ Half marks are the lowest fraction allowed.
○ Average speech is 70 (28, 28, 14).
 4. Oral adjudication prep
Reflect the discussion in the OA

● Only one member of the panel will deliver an OA

reflecting opinions from all the judges
○ In most cases, the Chair judge will deliver
the OA to the Teams.
○ Where there is a split with the Chair in the
minority, the Chair may request a member of
the majority to deliver the OA.
● Make sure your OAs factor in dissenting opinions
in their OA
○ Take notes as the conferral decision is
shaping up the win/loss.
○ Request judges on your panel to provide you
key points of divergence, and frame the OA
to cover those.
 5. OA Delivery
This should both clearly and specifically explain the call

● Deliver the OA
○ Announce the decision first. With the possible exception of late outrounds or the Grand Final, there is no need to be
suspenseful.
○ Keep the OA within 8 minutes, and do not reveal any speaker scores
○ In these 8 minutes, walk teams through the tracking of the debate and its interactions, rather than giving them lists of
what arguments they made:
■ Why are specific issues are important in the context of this particular debate? Why?
■ Are these issues equally important, or are some more important than others? Why?
■ Which teams won on specific issues and why?

● Be comparative:
○ What points (e.g. points of argumentation, points of style or strategy) were more persuasive on the winning side
○ Explanation of strengths and weaknesses of teams has to always be comparative
○ Be specific: Do not stop at generic phrases like "provided more analysis", "were more persuasive", etc. Instead, give
specific points of reference where that was observable.
○ Try to spend an equal amount of time on both teams, balancing positive and constructive
○ Choose your language carefully - no offensive comments, do not make fun of speakers, be respectful at all times.
○ When explaining the decision, stick to what happened in the round. Offer suggestions for improvement later.
 6. Constructive feedback
Constructive = aim to develop the speaker and not just criticise

● In this role, you are an educator and not just an unbiased judge.
● If asked, you may provide suggestions for how you would have approached the motion or
specific arguments or responses you might have run. While useful, THIS IS NOT A NECESSITY
and coaches/teams should not expect this from judges.
● Suggest to teams how to prioritise their material.
● Provide more in-depth feedback per speaker (what they did well, what they can do better in the
next round)
● Adjust your feedback to the speakers (don’t overload novices with complex comments, etc.)
● Do not single out speakers for doing poorly.
● Provide teams with an opportunity to ask any questions they may have.
● Be nice and compliment speakers when you can!
Important conferral judging guide
Part 1

● Enter the discussion with openness:

○ Avoid being obstinate or unwilling to listen to what other judges are saying. There is no shame in changing your
decision if you feel that additional information or perspective changes the way you view the debate.
● Be specific in your questions:
○ As much as is possible, any clarifications should be targeted and specific, rather than open ended. Judges are
expected to avoid asking ‘What did X say in their second argument?’, and instead play back their understanding of
the second argument and ask for additions if there are any.
● Use language that makes space for, and facilitates discussion:
○ Phrase sentences that indicate that you are sharing opinions, rather than sharing objective fact. Avoid statements
such as: “This clash clearly went to X”, or “This is such an obvious win to Y”.
● Spend more time on (i.e. prioritise) contentious, important areas:
○ Owing to time constraints, all participants are expected to spend a majority of the discussion on clear and specific
areas that are more difficult to evaluate and matter more to the overall decision of the debate, rather than areas that
the judges broadly agree on, or may have contention, but do not contribute as much to deciding the round’s winner.
Important conferral judging guide
Part 2

● Avoid arguments/heated back and forths:

○ Be consistently aware that you are in a ‘conferral’ rather than a ‘consensus’ discussion. Receiving information to
enhance your decision making process is more important than the end state of the decision itself.
● Chairs please lead the discussion
○ E.g. specifying what you want discussed, and how long the discussion should be.
○ As a guide, each panellist should spend no more than 2 minutes each when contributing to a discussion. If
something has already been mentioned, just add that it has been covered and move on to another part of that
discussion. It is ok if your contribution has already been discussed and you have nothing else to say.
○ Chairs should scaffold the discussion as necessary e.g. “we will first discuss the question of morality, before we
move on to the question on practical impacts since Opposition’s strategy largely focused on morality”.
● While trainees do not submit ballots, they should be involved in the conferral discussion nevertheless
○ Chairs and Panellists, please do not disregard judges just because they are trainees. They are an essential part of
the tournament, and their contribution (and feedback) is considered for judge evaluations.
● Remember to be comparative
○ Debates are not won or loss in a vacuum. Always compare the contributions of both teams.
 (WSDC)
Scoring
and
Feedback
 Marking range
Approach to understanding how to score a speaker

● Content, Style and Strategy are the criteria used to review the performance of each team and assess scores to each
speaker. Rather than rigidly seeing them as discrete elements when determining speaker scores/which team won, these
three areas should help a judge understand what team did a best job during the debate overall, i.e. which team won the
debate

○ Content (40%) → WHAT you say in the debate (e.g. as if ChatGPT is judging)
○ Style (40%) → HOW you say something in the debate (Note: NOT accent, use of cue cards, immutable
characteristics e.g. pitch, tone; about: word choice, pace, volume, speed, etc.);
○ Strategy (20%) → WHY you say something in the debate (e.g. motion interpretation, time allocation, consistency,
POIs, dealing with the issues in the debate, etc.)

● The speaker scores are a mathematical expression of your decision and they help you evaluate individual performance
of speaker

● For example, if you write down your speakers’ scores and when calculating the totals they indicate that team A won but
you honestly think team B should win because they were overall more convincing and did a better job, then you should
review the scores you’ve awarded as your decision and the final scores should not contradict themselves.
 WSDC Scoring
The average is 70 but please use the range!

Standard Overall (/100) Style (/40) Content (/40) Strategy (/20)

● In WSDC debating, main speeches are Exceptional 80 32 32 16
Excellent 76-79 31 31 15-16
marked out of 100% Extremely Good 74-75 30 30 15
● Judges are expected to fill in scores for Very Good 71-73 29 29 14-15
Good 70 28 28 14
each category
Satisfactory 67-69 27 27 13-14
● The WSDC speaker scale is between 60-80 Competent 65-66 26 26 13
● The average speech is 70 (28, 28, 14) Pass 61-64 25 25 12-13
Improvement Needed 60 24 24 12
● Half marks (0.5) are the lowest fraction
allowed. Standard Overall (/50) Style (/20) Content (/20) Strategy (/10)
Exceptional 40 16 16 8
● Reply speeches are marked out of 50%.
V Good to Excellent 36-39 15 15 7.5
● An average reply speech is 35. Good 35 14 14 7
Pass to
31-34 13 13 6.5
satisfactory
Improvement Needed 30 12 12 6
 Scoring and margin
The margin in a debate should reflect the gap in teams

Simple checks
• What would an average score sound in a debate speech? Move up and down accordingly for
speakers who are below or above average.
• To score reply speeches, assess it like a regular speech and divide it by 2
• Half marks are the lowest fraction allowed.
• After tallying the scores, the total score of the winning team must be higher than the total score of
the losing team.
Margins between teams
• 0-2 pts – very close debate
• 3-5 pts – close but rather clear
• 5-10 pts – one team clearly better, but not dominating
• 10-20 pts – winning team dominated the debate
• 20+ pts – winning team “significantly beat” the losing team
 Summary of the scale
Use this as a guide to judge speakers

Standard Overall Explanation

• Plausibly one of the best schools’ debating speeches ever given;

Exceptional 80
• Flawless and compelling arguments, made with outstanding delivery.

• Sophisticated arguments that are exclusively relevant, very well-explained with no logical gaps, and are very difficult to respond to.
Excellent 76.5-79.5
• Style is very engaging and persuasive,

• Arguments have minimal logical gaps, and engage comprehensively with core issues of the debate, but are susceptible to strong responses.
Extremely Good 74-76
• Speech is very easy to follow, style is engaging.

• Arguments engage with core issues of the debate, but may have some logical gaps.
Very Good 70.5-73.5
• Speech is easy to follow, style is often engaging.

• Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, but not all sufficiently explained and are prone to responses.
Good (Average) 70
• Speech is always clear, and mostly easy to follow

• Arguments are often relevant, and partially explained.

Satisfactory 66.5-69.5
• Speech is nearly always clear, but sometimes difficult to follow.

• Arguments are sometimes relevant, but little explanation provided

Competent 64-66
• Speech is sometimes clear, but often difficult to follow.

• Arguments are occasionally relevant, but very minimal explanation provided.

Pass 60.5-63.5
• Speech is rarely clear, and very difficult to follow.

Improvement • Content is not relevant nor explained;

60
Needed • Speech is not clear and impossible to follow in its entirety.
 Electronic Ballot Sample
Please confirm if you have your private URLs

If not, please reach out to the Tab Team who would be happy to assist!
 Oral Adjudication (OA) and Reasons for
Decision (RFD)
The OA/RFD should be clear, concise and comparative

• Judges need to decide a winner between the 2 teams

• Judges announce results first
• Judges use the three categories of Style, Content, and Strategy in their RFD.
• When discussing content, Judges should focus on issues in the debate – which ones were important, which team
won which issues and why. Be specific, making close reference to the relevant speeches.
• Judges should be comparative when discussing content, style and strategy, and the relative strengths and
weakness of each team.
• Judges should spend an equal amount of time on both teams
• Judges should try to balance positive and critical comments
• Keep it short - at most 10 minutes (preferably 8 minutes or so)
• Tell teams they may approach for individual feedback.
 Effective OA / RFD
The OA/RFD should be clear, concise and comparative

Use their words and examples Don’t be vague

Be comparative
Don’t be too harsh or
Show confidence in your overemphasize the winning (or
decision losing) team
 Feedback
Please note that at this tournament, feedback is mandatory, via Tabbycat.

Feedback from Teams

● All teams should submit feedback on all their Chair judges / the person that delivered the OA.

Feedback from Judges

● Chairs, please give feedback on panel (including trainees).
● Panel, please submit feedback on chairs.
● Trainees, please submit feedback on your chairs.

How to Submit Feedback

● Feedback can be submitted through your personalized URL link.
● Feedback will be considered by CAP in selecting judges to adjudicate the out-rounds.
● Please use the Feedback Scales.

The judge break is:

● Competitive - we will break judges to recognise strong performance at the tournament
● Representative - we will try to break judges to ensure out rounds have a balance of representation

TO BE BREAK ELIGIBLE, JUDGES MUST HAVE SUBMITTED 100% OF THEIR REQUIRED FEEDBACK
Reminders

● Make sure you have the names and speaker positions of the
speakers who spoke for the round before deliberation.
● Timings please.
● Submit your ballots promptly to avoid delays!

Any Questions?
Appendix
A

Speaker
Scale
 Full scale (1)
Review when judging if helpful

Mark Explanation
• Content is not relevant to the motion and what the team needs to prove.
60 • All points made are claims, with no analysis, and are confusing.
• The speech is hard to follow throughout, so it is hard to give it any credit.
• A few marginally relevant claims.
61-63 • No analysis provided in the claims, which are mainly lines without explanation.
• Parts of the speech are clear, but significant parts are still hard to follow.
• Some of the points made are relevant to the debate.
64 - 66 • Arguments / rebuttals are made with some explanation and analysis, but with significant logical gaps in the explanation.
• Sometimes the speech is difficult to follow.
• Most of the points made are relevant to the debate.
67 - 69 • All arguments / rebuttals have some explanation, but it still has logical and analytical gaps in important parts of the argument and lacks evidence.
• Mostly easy to follow, but some sections may still be hard to understand.
• No major shortfalls, nor any strong moments.
• Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, although may fail to address one or more core issues sufficiently.
70
• All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and some examples, but are simplistic and easy to attack.
• Easy to follow throughout which makes the speech understandable, though style does not necessarily serve to make the speech more persuasive.
 Full scale (2)
Review when judging if helpful

Mark Explanation
• Arguments are all relevant, and address the core issues in the debate.
• All arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps and most have credible evidence. Some points raised may have
71 - 72
minor logical gaps or deficits in explanation.
• Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the speech more engaging and persuasive.

• Arguments are relevant and engage with the most important issues. Arguments have sufficient explanation without major logical gaps.
73 - 76 • Occasionally, the speaker provides more sophisticated and nuanced analysis, making their arguments hard to attack.
• Easy to follow throughout. On occasion the style may even serve to make the speech more engaging and persuasive.

• Arguments are all relevant and well-illustrated, and address the core issues in the debate, with thorough explanations, no logical gaps,
77 - 79 and credible examples, making them hard to attack
• Easy to follow throughout. The style serves to make the speech’s content more engaging.
• Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given in a schools competition.
80 • It is incredibly difficult to think up satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made.
• Flawless and compelling arguments, made with outstanding delivery.
 Full scale (3) - Reply
Review when judging if helpful

Mark Standard

The speaker did not describe the debate as it happened. They misunderstood or misrepresented central arguments and
30
responses.

Instead of actually identifying or analysing points of clash, speaker mostly just retold the debate as it happened or attempted to
31-34
keep arguing for their side.

Speaker identified the major points of clash between two teams and was able to provide some basic justification for awarding the
35
win to speaker’s team.

Almost perfect overview of the debate. Particular interactions from the debate were analysed and used as evidence for awarding
36-39
the win to the speaker’s team.

Flawless analysis of the debate that just occurred. Speaker was able to accurately identify turning points in the debate (including
40
the strongest arguments and rebuttal of their opponents) and why they their side wins on balance
 Full scale (4) - Conversion
Review when judging if helpful

WSDC
WUDC Australs AP
Standard Overall Style Content Strategy Reply

Exceptional 80 32 32 16 40 90-100 80 83

Excellent 76.5-79.5 30.5-31.5 31-31.5 15.5 38.5-39.5 85-89 79 81-82

Extremely
74-76 29.5-30.5 29.5-30.5 15 37-38 81-84 77-78 78-80
Good

Very Good 70.5-73.5 28.5-29 28.5-29 14.5 35.5.-36.5 76-80 76 76-77

 Full scale (5) - Conversion
Review when judging if helpful

WSDC
WUDC Australs AP
Standard Overall Style Content Strategy Reply

Good
70 28 28 14 35 75 75 75
(Average)

Satisfactory 66.5-69.5 27-27.5 27-27.5 13.5 33.5-34.5 20-74 74 73-74

Competent 64-66 25.5-26.5 25.5-26.5 13 32-33 66-69 72-73 70-72

Pass 60.5-63.5 24.5-25 24.5-25 12.5 30.5-31.5 61-65 71 68-69

Improvement
60 24 24 12 30 50-60 70 67
Needed