Aware of basic facts about the world
Familiar with issues and events that have made international headlines for a
sustained period of time
Avoids utilising personal knowledge that they have of the topic
Avoids presuming a geographic, cultural, national, ethnic or other background
when assessing argument
Unbiased
Capable of logically following and analyzing a debate, and understanding complex
concepts when explained
Non interventionist
Comparative – Be mindful of what things look like on the other side rather than simply
crediting them in isolation.
This helps determine how much to insert yourself while weighing and whether an
impact/analysis must stand.
Holistic – Treat all forms of contribution equally without inherent bias.
Arguments both Principle and Pragmatic, Rebuttals, POIs etc
Objective – Don’t insert yourself into the debate unnecessarily (Biases in beliefs,
Burdens you think are more intuitive etc.).
Track – Listen to arguments carefully and track whatever content came in the speeches
in accordance to how it was given (Without filling in gaps/making up interpretations).
Reaching the correct call after thorough deliberation.
Be mindful of others and don’t choose to undermine either the speakers or the fellow
panel during deliberation.
Don’t credit things like style, structure or time allocation → these are useful
mechanisms of persuasion and can strengthen arguments, but cannot be double
credited
Number of arguments, originality of arguments, time spent on an argument should
not be in and of itself relevant.
Example - ‘they only said it at 6:30’ – an argument can be well proven even in a limited
amount of time.‘they had 5 reasons and the other side had 3’ – number isn’t a
determination of how well analysed something is
Do not assert your own metrics.
Don’t think of a team as an auto 4th or auto 1st without careful reasoning and
deliberation.
Do not do Rep-Calls – Assuming a team will win based on them being more
experienced/famous debaters.
Be Comparative
Critically evaluate to what extent teams are in fact proving their argument
There is no binary between ‘proven’ and ‘not proven at all’ →spectrum
Check Relevance,Exclusivity
● Is there one criterion or principle that all teams explicitly agree is true and
important?
● If not, is there one criterion or principle that all teams implicitly agree is true and
important?
● If not, is there one criterion or principle that one team in the round has successfully
proven to be true and important? I.e. If no team agrees on one criterion, and all
teams are asserting different metrics, which team has provided the best reasons to
believe that their metric is the most important one in the round?
● Where none of these apply, judge based on what the Ordinary Intelligent Voter
would take to be important. This should be a last resort measure only, as it is very
rare that none of the aforementioned scenarios would apply.
Listen first, Write after. Don’t simply jot down everything the speaker is saying.
Find a balance between writing too much and too little.
Use colour codes, symbols and annotations.
Clearly differentiate all speeches from one another.
Have a master sheet to evaluate everything at the end and to use for justifications.
Try switching the method of writing (laptop, paper).
Master
Sheet
Use Master sheet to structure OA.
Clear and concise but comprehensive.
Deal in specifics rather than generalities (Saying mechanisation wasn’t enough is meh, Explain
what was missing that inhibited you from crediting)
You are not the whip of a team, Don’t be overly harsh toward one of the sides.
Give constructive feedback carefully, You might come off as intervening.
Steelman the weaker teams a little bit at times when the clash is really clear and explain like
“even if I were to buy your case here you still wouldn’t win as XYZ”.
Address the major points teams flagged (if a major point ended up being irrelevant, explain why
it was irrelevant, do not just ignore it)
Include constructive material, engagement, weighing.
Try using team’s language when explaining a bench’s case rather than your own.
Have faith in your call even if you suck.
Be brief in your justifications.
Don’t yap about something that isn’t currently being discussed/part of the current clash
(Bringing up OG’s rebuttal to OO in a comparison between OO and CG).
Communicate clearly and discuss the comparisons in specific ‘margins’ or ‘clashes’ that
were contested upon by both sides and how one prevailed over the other as well as the
importance of that clash in the debate.
Point out the obvious reasons first (One team had clear weighing, analysis on either
side had obvious holes/flaws)
When you are unsure about the comparison, Say it. That is why we are deliberating.
Use less time on the clearer comparisons and more time on the points where there is a
contentious call.
Use a timer to avoid taking too much time (Can also be used to shut people up).
Do not be a people pleaser. If you don’t agree then say it, but also don’t be a stuck up
asshole without reasoning.
[Link] who won+Mov
[Link]
[Link] on each side
[Link] comments(only if really needed )
[Link]/Clashes /Themes in the debate(spend maximum time here)
[Link] and Fallacies, Material not credited(optional)
[Link] comparison + who fulfills their burden better (concluding statement)
1. Rank-wise Justification (either from the top 1>2>3>4 or from the
bottom 4<3<2<1)
Depends on whether there was a clear victor or a controversial loser
Goes like 4v3->4v2->4v1->3v2->3v1->2v1 from bottom to top, or
From the top to bottom: 1v2->1v3->1v4->2v3->2v4->3v4
2. Chronological Justification
Gives an overview of the round from the ground up, Helpful in messy debates.
OGvOO->OGvCG->OOvCG->CGvCO->COvOG->COvOO.