NUDC 2017

Adjudication Seminar
Vicario Harris Boby Deta Rifan
Why are we
doing this?
Being an adjudicator is a tricky task. It requires in-depth understanding of debating rules which is necessary to facilitate individuals in making a
decision for the rounds. This seminar acts as a guideline to help N1 judges acclimate themselves to these rules.
Some judges might be familiar with adjudicating in other formats than BP. It is important to recalibrate their orientation as BP judging is uniquely
different and should be assessed with a different benchmark.

Standards in competitive debating constantly evolves, following the new standards introduced and employed in
World Universities Debating Championship every year. What you thought was good judging in the past might not be relevant in todays context.
Just like the Kardashians, you need to keep up.
What Will We Be Discussing?

I. General Rules of BP Debating

II. How to Adjudicate
III. Scoring Standards
IV. Oral Adjudication
V. Conflict System
General Rules Of BP Debating

BURDENS :
In a debate, 4 teams will present their case. They are the Opening and
Closing teams from the Government and Opposition side.
Government must propose the motion as stated, Opposition can choose
how to negate the topic.
What this means is that Opposition does not have to negate everything.
They may concede with certain points of Government.
Ex: THW send ground troops to Syria, Opposition can opt to propose
sending air strikes via drones instead of ground troops. They will
concede that military action is necessary and justified, but prefers a
different method. This is a valid strategy.
The burden of Opposition is to oppose the motion they have no burden
to solve whatever urgency is brought. Judges should not expect
Opposition to provide a counter-solution to the problem, unless the team
decides that it is the burden that they will take.
General Rules Of BP Debating
PROPOSITION FIAT
Fiat is the privilege granted to teams, allowing them to assume that their policy will be
carried out by the relevant actor (or whoever This House is defined as). This is done so
debates do not become about unnecessary technicalities.
What this means is that feasibility attacks by the opponent that tries to disprove that the
motion will not happen at all/will never take place cannot be credited.
Ex: TH, as the United Nations, would invade Syria.
Government team can assume that United Nations will do the policy (in this case,
invasion to Syria)
Opposition can NOT attack by saying, Oh, but Russia will veto this resolution in UNSC!
Government team, however, cannot assume that all parties will fully support this.
Thus, Opposition can still say, Given Russia is an ally of Syria, they would most likely be
opposed to the attack and still give Assad weapons, which make the invasion fruitless
and ineffective.
Opposition team, should they choose to bring a counter-solution, is granted the same
degree of fiat as Government team, as long as they utilize roughly similar amount/form of
resources (money, political will).
General Rules Of BP Debating
ROLE FULFILLMENT
Role fulfillment refers to the unique roles that each speakers in the round has. These roles are
a minimum standard required for the teams to do well in the debate.
Opening Gov
Prime Minister: define the debate, explain details of motion, provide argumentation
Deputy Prime Minister: clarify definition/stance if needed, provide responses and
argumentation
Opening Opp
Leader of Opposition: set a clashing point with the Government, provide responses and
argumentation
Deputy Leader of Opposition: clarify clashing point if needed, provide responses and
argumentation
Closing Gov and Opp
Member of Government and Opposition: provide mapping of the debate, explain distinct
stance/approach, provide extension
Government and Opposition Whip: summarize the debate, provide responses, glorify member
speakers extension
General Rules Of BP Debating
ROLE FULFILLMENT

Role fulfillment helps teams to make the debate understandable and engaging to
the judges. However, role fulfillment is not (and should never be) a determinant
of whether or not a team wins/loses.
If a team fulfilled their roles properly, does not mean they automatically win the
debate.
Conversely, if a team missed a few of their roles, does not mean they
automatically lose the debate.
In short: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AUTOMATIC WINS OR LOSSES.

The way role fulfillment should be assessed is how it impacts your

understanding of the teams case.
Ex: if the team was unclear in terms of definition and that created a
confusing debate, you may place blame on OG for their lack of
definitional clarity. However, if they didnt bring a definition but the
debate did not suffer from the lack of definition, then you should not
penalize OG because there was no harm done.
General Rules Of BP Debating
ARGUMENTATION
Arguments are the teams way of proving whether the motion should be
supported or not. Arguments must be: i) relevant, ii) logical, iii) mutually
exclusive.
Relevance refers to the fact whether or not the argument fits into the context
that the debate is taking place in.
Ex: THBT technology brings more harm than good, OG argument is about
why technology is not justified argument irrelevant to Burden!
Logical refers to the quality of argument, whether or not it can be accepted
through common sense and whether or not there is a development of logical
processes.
Ex: THW ban smoking, OO argument is about harm to national economy
argument must explain in details how!
Mutually Exclusive refers to the condition where arguments should prove why
its premises are exclusively existing on your side and does not occur on the
other side. If an argument isnt mutually exclusive, it is a conceded point by
both teams and does not become a contention point.
Ex: THW subsidize internet, OG argument is about gov duty to accommodate
society in general not contextual!
Judges must be aware that they are NOT blank slates. Use your brain during
the debate.
General Rules Of BP Debating
RESPONSES
Rebuttals are material attacks to the opponents case, attempting to
disprove their weight in the debate.
Essentially, rebuttals are about proving why your opponent is
wrong. Rebuttals are important in a debate because it shows which
teams are engaging and making the issues clash. The absence of
rebuttals may indicate that a team is inferior as they are
unwilling/incapable of responding to the opponent. However, teams
are not obliged to rebut everything. Some points may already be
weak on their own and do not require so much response from the
opposing side.
Rebuttals exist in many forms, from negating a point to creating a
comparison/trade-off analysis, and all of them should be considered
valid.
What is NOT considered rebuttals are mere questioning of the
opponents case, without proving otherwise.
General Rules Of BP Debating
Extensions
Extensions are the unique responsibility of Closing teams, specifically the
Member Speaker. Extensions essentially are any form of material that will
extend the debate and push it forward.
Extensions can take place in the form of:
New arguments which have not yet been made in the debate.
New rebuttals.
New examples.
New analysis or explanations of existing arguments.
(New applications of existing argumentation (e.g. if the extension speaker points
out that that one of the first-half's arguments is able to defeat a new argument
from the other side).
Just because Opening has already said it, doesnt mean Closing automatically
loses. Be on the lookout for distinct analysis or conclusion that the Closing may
provide.
How To Adjudicate:
KNOWING YOUR ROLE

Adjudicator assume the role of an average reasonable voter. You

must be average, reasonable, and act as a voter.
You must be a person who has average knowledge of the topic under
debate but expertise knowledge of the rules for competitive debating
a. Not an expert on issues
b. Read the news regularly
c. Understand debating rules
You must put logic and reason as your guide in assessing the debate.
a. Open-minded
b. Detach yourself from personal preferences (e.g.: religious beliefs, political
affiliations, etc.)
Your role is to act like a moderate voter deciding their stance on a
proposed policy.
a. Balance of information between two contrasting party
b. Must be comparative towards all the information presented to you.

IN SHORT, YOU MUST ADJUDICATE THE DEBATE THAT HAPPENS AND

NOT THE ONE THAT YOU THOUGHT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
How To Adjudicate:
THE GENERAL PROCESS

Judges individually decide their ranks.

All judges on the panel will have a conferring
to decide the outcome of the round.
The Chair will fill in the Adjudication Sheet.
The Chair (or an appointed Panel, if the Chair
dissents) will provide the oral adjudication to
the teams, explaining the reasons how the
panel came up with the final call.
How To Adjudicate:
THE INDIVIDUAL PROCESS
Prepare to take notes of the debate. There is no specific way how one should
take note, as everyone has different ways. You may choose to write things
verbatim (word per word) or just a summation of what the speakers said. Dont
be lazy and rely on your memory only.
Assess the debate as it goes on. What this means is that as the round
progresses, you are constantly evaluating who wins/loses by that point. This is
helpful because it allows you to continuously compare the teams and by the
time the round ends, you have a rough idea on the team ranking.
Pay attention to claims made by each teams (both arguments and rebuttals)
and scrutinize them with common sense questions such as, is this true?,
why is this important?, how will this happen?. Teams that are able to
satisfy this litmus test generally are the more superior team, as they were
capable to provide clear elaboration.
At the end of the round, list down your justification as to why you felt certain
teams deserve to get the higher ranks and why the others do not. Remember,
adjudication emphasizes on your interpretation, your sense of judgment on the
points made dont just repeat the cases!
How To Adjudicate:
THE CONFERRING PROCESS
Discuss the decision (ranks) with the other members of the panel
until a consensus is reached (everyone agrees on the rank and
scores given to each team/speaker). The Chair adjudicator will
facilitate the discussion, with Panels and Trainees pitching their
thoughts about the round.
Changing decision doesnt mean that you are a bad adjudicator. It
is allowed in order to achieve the consensus. Remember that
other people on the panel may perceive the arguments differently
with you and thus, keep an open mind to their interpretation.
If a consensus is not reached after a 15-minute discussion, the
decision should be taken by voting. If the number of the votes are
even, the Chair judgee will be the tie-breaker.
The chair will fill in the Adjudication Sheet and give it to the LOs.
 SCORING
STANDARDS
BELOW AVERAGE
Score Description
60 - 64 The speaker is often irrelevant, but rarely
makes full arguments. Frequently unclear and
confusing; really problematic structure/lack
thereof; some awareness of role.
65 - 69 Relevant arguments are frequently made, but
with very rudimentary explanation mostly in
the form of assertions without any follow-up
substantiation. The speaker is clear enough to
be understood the vast majority of the time.
AVERAGE
Score Description
70 - 75 Arguments are generally relevant, and some
explanation of them given, but there may be
obvious gaps in logic, seen as simplistic
argumentation. May sometimes be difficult to
follow.
76 - 79 Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and
frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not often,
the speaker may slip into: i) deficits in explanation,
ii) simplistic argumentation vulnerable to
competent responses or iii) peripheral or irrelevant
arguments.
ABOVE AVERAGE
Score Description
80 - 84 Relevant and pertinent arguments address key issues in
the round with sufficient explanation. The speech is clear
and persuasive. Perhaps slight issues with balancing
argumentation and refutation and/or engagement in the
debate.
85 - 90 Very good, central arguments engage well with the most
important issues on the table and are highly compelling;
sophisticated responses would be required to refute them.
Delivery is clear and manner very persuasive. Role
fulfillment and structure probably flawless.
Scoring Standards
HOW TO DO IT PROPERLY
Follow the standard provided by the exhibition debate
Be comparative among speakers
Be consistent in all rounds
Do not disclose the speaker scores to the debaters! Any
form of score leaks will be penalized heavily.
You may give a qualitative assessment on how the
speaker performed and which range they might fall in
(below average, average, or above average), but
nothing more.
Round: Venue:
Motion:
Chair Adjudicator
Panelists: 1 [Panelists Name] 2 [Panelists Name] 3 [Panelists Name]

Opening Government [Position] Opening Opposition [Position]

[Team Name] [Team Name]

[Score [Score
1 [Speaker Name] 1 [Speaker Name]
] ]
[Score [Score
2 [Speaker Name] 2 [Speaker Name]
] ]
[Team [Team
Score] Score]

Closing Government [Position] Closing Opposition [Position]

[Team Name] [Team Name]
[Score [Score
1 [Speaker Name] 1 [Speaker Name]
] ]
[Score [Score
2 [Speaker Name] 2 [Speaker Name]
] ]
[Team [Team
Score] Score]

(chair signature)
Oral Adjudication
WHAT SHOULD BE EXPLAINED
Brief general commentaries on the round
Result of the round (the ranking of the teams)
The justification of each ranking

Note:
Judges may choose to individually assess each teams performance,
or provide a direct comparison between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd, & 3rd
and 4th. Just keep in mind that either way, comparatives must be
made.
Judges should be balanced in their justification they must show
which good things teams brought made them persuaded and which
bad things made them not. Be fair in your assessment!
CONFLICT SYSTEM
Conflicts of Interest is the condition in which judges objectivity might be
compromised because they are judging a team/speaker that they have a
unique relationship with.

They arise in the following situations:

In a Relationship.
Attendance at the Same University/Institution.
Substantial Involvement with Another Debating Society (e.g., Coaching, co-
training)
Other circumstances that may compromise your objectivity in adjudicating
the debate (e.g.: Bad Blood, Boss and Employee, They stole your
boy/girlfriend)
Soft Conflicts (other circumstances where judges believe they might not be
objective in adjudicating)

Judges must declare their conflicts during the accreditation. If new conflicts
arise, or some have been missed, please notify the Adjudication Core at
once.
Oral Adjudication
HOW TO DELIVER EFFECTIVELY
Always prep before you deliver!
A verbal adjudication is not a debate speech. It should not take too long.
(5-6 mins max)
You are not arguing but showing the debaters how you perceived the
debate.
Again, there is no single style to verbal adjudication. What is important is
justifying the decision. However, try your best to provide clarity during the
OA, because if your OA is unclear, it may impact the teams understanding
of the justifications and will affect your feedback score.
You are a human being, not a parrot. Dont just repeat what the teams
have said!
Separate evaluation from constructive feedback.
Remember that your decision matters to the debaters and your own
final accreditation!