Adjudication Seminar
Kushay - Feri - Aida
Role of Adjudicators - Responsibilities
• 1. Assess - the debate as it is conveyed fairly.
• 2. Decide - on which team which has won the
debate.
• 3. Grade - the speakers according to their
performances
• 4. Deliver - a verbal adjudication to justify the
decision
• 5. Provide - a constructive feedbacks for debaters
to improve their performance
Role of Adjudicators - Characteristics
• 1. Understanding thoroughly the rules of Asian Parliamentary
System
• 2. Reading the news regularly, knowing headlines, and
possessing common knowledge (Globally Informed Citizen)
e.g. PSSI, Rohingya, Benjamin Netanyahu, ISIS
• 3. Being reasonably sceptical
e.g. You will not simply believe in what people tell you unless
s/he can prove it
Role of Adjudicators - Assessment
A. Assessing Debates
• Assess the debate based on clashes.
• Clashes are the central issues that are addressed implicitly or
explicitly by one or both teams in a debate.
• Clashes are considered important if:
- Most discussed by both teams
- Proven to be important by one team
- If the basis above does not apply, use your sense as
Globally Informed Citizen to decide
How to analyze clashes?
• A clash should go to a team which can provide explanation to
answer the clash through their arguments and rebuttals.
• Weighing arguments:
1. 1. The depth of logical analysis
2. 2. The significance of the argument
3. 3. The strength and relevance of evidences provided
4. 4. The relevance of an argument toward the teams’ stance, or
the contribution of an argument in reaching the team’s
intended goal
• Weighing rebuttals:
1. 1. How effective it proves that the opponent’s arguments will
not happen
2. 2. How effective it proves that the opponent’s impacts
(harm/benefit) will not take place
3. 3. How effective it proves that the opponent’s arguments are
irrelevant and insignificant to the intended goal/team’s stance
4. 4. How effective it shows that the opponent’s arguments are
internally inconsistent
→ Good rebuttals can tackle down good arguments
B. Assessing Speakers
• Matter: how effective the point persuade an average reasonable person
- contributive and relevant point
- sufficiently proven
• Manner: the way of speakers deliver the speech
- intonation, diction, fluency, pace of speaking
- can be credited but cannot be the sole reason to win
• Method: the efficiency of a speech presentation
- organization of speech
- timing
• Note that those three elements should be graded holistically, not
partially
FAQs
• 1. How to deal with a team with contradicting argument?
- if pointed out → credit the opponent
- if not pointed out → lose the persuasiveness, not
automatically lose
• 2. Should we discredit a speaker who does not accept any POI?
- no, but loss the opportunity to improve their case
- assess the debate as it is
• 3. How do I weigh ‘facts’?
- credit as supporting element if it is proven
- use your skepticism to question
- more facts =/= better
FAQs
• 4. How to deal with hung case?
- (incomplete explanation, thus unclear and gradual)
- credit speaker who can complete it
• 5. What if the 3rd speaker brings a new argument?
- (completely new, have not been introduced)
- widening the explanation, new examples, facts, and analogy
- → not new arguments
- no credit for whip on that point
• 6. Am I allowed to change my decision?
- Nope
FAQs
• 7. How to assess unfair definition?
- Fair definition:
1. reasonable
2. not truistic and tautological
3. not set in unfair place and setting
→ debatable
- If unfair, credit the opponent which clarifies the mess
- if no one clarifies, judge the debate as it is
- no automatic loss
FAQs
• 8. If, in a round, there are two clashes in which each
team wins one clash, how to decide the winner?
- Weigh which clash is more important
(centralized/most discussed, relevant, and proven by
the teams)
- explain why the clash is more important
Role of Adjudicators - Stepping In
You are stepping in when you are :
• Expecting the debaters to bring particular idea you have in mind
• Completing/adding new ideas which debaters never deliver
• Using your personal expertise/specific knowledge to judge
• Using your bias perspective to assess the debate
Be attentive and objective!
Role of Adjudicators - Positions
CHAIR – leading, collect, accommodate, verbal to debater
PANEL – verbal to chair
TRAINEE – verbal to chair, decision won’t be used to win/lose a
team
➢ PROMOTION: consistently get a good quantitative feedback
from your chair
➢ Do your best, no matter what your position is
Scoring for Debaters
Comments Substantive Speech
Flaws are virtually nonexistent or due only to 81-83
limitations set by speech time, etc.
Excellent contribution. Minor flaws. Some room for 77-80
improvement.
Fulfilled his or her role. Provides acceptable reason 74-76
to support side.
Weak contribution. Even without response, speech is 70-73
unpersuasive.
Contribution to the debate is insignificant or virtually 67-69
nonexistent.
The margin between two teams (i.e. the difference between the total team points of the
winning and losing teams) is between 0.5 to 16.
0.5 – 4 : Close 5 – 10 : Clear 11 – 16 : Thrashing
Score Breakdown : 67-69
67 : Standing still, Speaking in an incomprehensible language
68 : slightly more decipherable speech, still no contribution
69 : slightly more audible speaker finished with minimal contribution to
the round. Failed to convey assertion
Score Breakdown: 70-73
70 : asserted arguments and poorly explained. Logical links are poorly
explained
71 : asserted arguments with very minimum or vague explanation. Lacks
clarity to accept the contribution. Logical links are poorly explained
72 : asserted arguments with an explanation however insufficient to count
it as solid contribution. Logical links are poorly explained
73 : finished with acceptable contribution. Logical links are poorly
explained
Score Breakdown: 74-76
74 : fulfilled basic expectation with just enough explanation to make
sense, many take-for-granted ideas
75 : fulfilled basic expectation. Intuitive logical explanation
76 : fulfilled basic expectation with greater extent of explanation and
clarity
Score Breakdown: 77-80
77 : persuasive analysis and manner. Sufficiently explain
unintuitive ideas or out-of-the-box explanation of
intuitive ideas.
78 : persuasive analysis and manner. explain unintuitive
ideas well or great explanation of ordinary ideas
79 : persuasive analysis and manner. explain unintuitive
ideas very well or great and detailed explanation of
ordinary ideas
80 : highly persuasive analysis that blow your mind and
convincing manner, great examples, and high level of
clarity in explaining unintuitive ideas.
Score Breakdown: 81-83
81 : exceeded speaker requirements, exemplary analysis and manner,
loaded with convincing examples.
82 : superior speaker performance
83 : absolutely leave you convinced, and there will be nothing more
convincing than their speech ever.
Score Accreditation Description
1 T (1-2) Trainee. Unable to follow the debate, misrepresent the debate, unable to comprehend the
*consider as reason of winning
complaint
2 C- (3-4) Low quality panel. Able to intuitively follow the debate, able to find reason of winning but
often neat pick or provide uneven burden to team.
3 C to B- (5-6) Panel, weak chair. Able to compare intuitive ideas, provide decision, and reasoning. Unable
*minimum to to comprehend complex debate or arguments. May be influence exclusively by manner.
promote trainee
4 B to A- Strong panel, average chair. Able to asses the debate with equal burden of proof. Able to
(7-8) deliver their verbal in a convincing manner although often times the verbal does not reflect
the complexity of the debate.
5 A (9-10) Strong chair. Able to assess the complexity of debate, argument, and rebuttals and reflected
in verbal. Verbal was convincing and inclusive to all points. Able to pinpoint the same
burden and not easily bought by manner or intuitive argument
Feedback for Adjudicator